Two reports came out this week that have me thinking more deeply about the Liberal Party’s “woman problem”.
I’m looking at the questions put to party stalwarts as they review their spectacular wipe-out at the last election — and those that weren’t asked.
On Monday, the Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation released the first of what will be an annual scorecard of women’s income and health. The findings are devastating: Australian women are now poorer and less healthy than they were a decade ago.
At the current rate, it will take 70 years to reach equality in full-time employment and more than 200 years to reach income equality. What’s more, in 2020 women reported poorer health than men in all bar one domain, including in mental health, physical and social functioning, and bodily pain. More women than men experience elevated psychological distress, with rates rising sharply in women aged 18 to 24 and 55 to 64 over the past two decades.
Also on Monday, the results of the Australian Election Study (AES) were released. For 35 years, the study has been the leading barometer of political attitudes and behaviour, providing unparalleled insights into voters’ choices in elections.
The headline-grabbing findings included the fact that support for teal independents was most likely from tactical Labor or Greens voters rather than dissatisfied Liberals, and at election time Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce were the most unpopular party leaders since the study began in 1987. Ouch.
But less talked about results include the fact that the “gender gap” in Australian politics (the difference in men and women’s voting habits) continued to shift in a way that is bad news for the Liberals. The study noted that gender was a “big part of the conversation” during the election, referring to political staffer Brittany Higgins’ sexual assault allegation, the subsequent protests and the “well-educated women” leading the teal wave.
The survey went on to ask: “To what extent are these claims that women cost the Coalition the election supported by the evidence?” The answer: gender differences in the voting habits of men and women at the 2022 election played a role. While 38% of men gave their first preference vote in the House of Representatives to the Liberal-National Coalition, just 32% of women did. For Labor, the trend was the opposite, with candidates attracting 36% of women’s votes, compared with 32% of men.
This was the continuation of a long trend. Over the past 30 years, the gender gap has reversed, with women slightly more likely to vote for the Coalition in the 1990s and men more likely to vote Labor. Today, more men prefer the Coalition and more women prefer Labor. And while the gender gap in voting for the Coalition peaked in 2016 and 2019, with 10% more men than women voting for the Coalition and that gap narrowed slightly in 2022, it was not because the Coalition did better among women, but because they lost votes from both men and women.
As a result, the Liberal Party is, according to reports, looking at its woman problem as part of the soon-to-be-completed review into the election, which is being co-chaired by former party director Brian Loughnane and Liberal Senator Jane Hume. And while the results have not yet been released, they have started to leak in the media, which has inevitably focused almost exclusively on the issue of women’s representation in the party and whether it would — at last — swallow the bitter pill of quotas (spoiler, the answer is still no).
I’m not going to lie. I was deeply frustrated.
This brings me back to the study about women’s diminished economic security and health and the questions we are and are not asking Liberal Party stalwarts.
We should be asking: when will the Liberal Party be held accountable for the fact that women are poorer and sicker now than they were nearly a decade ago when the Coalition first came to power? This happened on its watch. We should be asking: why aren’t the policies (or lack thereof) that led to this outcome warranting further scrutiny as part of this post-election navel-gazing?
And why aren’t questions about this unfortunate legacy for women being put directly to Hume as she does the media rounds to talk about the review? She was, after all, the Coalition government’s first minister for women’s economic security — and the first minister for women’s economic security full stop. Why isn’t she being asked directly about the kinds of policies she oversaw?
These included the early- access-to-super scheme implemented at the height of the pandemic in which more women than men cleared out their super entirely with little hope of building it back as they enter their prime child-bearing years.
Before the election, I quipped that Hume could, rightly, be rebranded the minister for women’s economic insecurity such was her appalling record in the portfolio, and judging by this latest research, I was not wrong.
The debate cannot and must not focus exclusively on the optics of women’s representation in the Liberal Party and quotas while ignoring the policies and neglect that have profoundly, negatively impacted women’s lives.
The Liberal Party will need to address both if it wishes to reverse the “gender gap” — and that must start with a proper reckoning with its record.
Can the Liberal Party change its attitude toward women, or is it too late? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
