In the days before Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered his third budget, veteran Canberra press gallery journalist Michelle Grattan wrote that as the Albanese government looked to an election next year, “holding up Labor’s female vote will be vital”. She added that women would be a “prime political target” of the budget. She’s not wrong.
As I listened to Chalmers deliver his budget speech last night, my chief question was whether he had scored a bullseye in that regard. And, if not, how far had he strayed from the target? And, finally, how much would that hurt Labor in the upcoming election?
Among a myriad of issues, I believe Labor has grossly miscalculated its response to surging rates of violence against women — notably intimate partner homicide involving a female victim, which increased by 28% between 2021-22 and 2022-23 according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Just two weeks ago, those shocking figures, and the heartbreaking individual stories of human suffering and grief they represent, prompted tens of thousands to march in protest around the country.
This budget was a moment, I would argue the moment, for the Albanese government to powerfully demonstrate to the women of Australia, whose anger about the broader issue of women’s safety helped bring down the previous government, that it was prepared to back its rhetoric around women’s safety with the resources required to make that rhetoric a reality. If not now, with a $9.3 billion surplus, then when? Certainly not in future years when there’s a significant, predicted structural deficit.
When launching the new, second National Plan to End Violence Against Women two years ago, Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth promised to end violence against women “within a generation”. And when launching the first so-called “action plan” of the new national plan last year — that’s where the federal, state and territory governments drilled down into the detail of how they will deliver on that worthy goal — the government set specific targets for the first time, including a target to reduce the number of women killed by intimate partner violence by 25% each year.
Since I set out to explore whether the Albanese government was hitting its targets when it comes to matters of great importance to women, I’ll just pause here to say that I think we can all agree that we’re nowhere near on track for that one.
The government’s initial response to the crisis of men’s violence against women, announced after an emergency National Cabinet meeting two weeks ago, was to make the $5,000 Escaping Violence Payment program permanent. To say that the women’s safety sector was underwhelmed would be an understatement. It barely touched the sides of the problem. A 2022 report from DVNSW found that only 15% of women who accessed the payment received the full $5,000.
Where was the support for the frontline? Some services have resorted to handing out tents to women and children because there are no other options for safe accommodation. Some sexual violence services report 12-year-olds on waiting lists for counselling for up to 14 months.
Last night’s budget was a chance to correct course. It didn’t happen. There was no new money for family, domestic and sexual violence frontline services. What’s more, there wasn’t nearly enough money to invest in appropriate housing to meet demand or an increase to social supports like JobSeeker. There was, however, a non-means tested $300 energy bill rebate. I couldn’t help myself. I quipped on social media that perhaps all those not struggling to make rent or put food on that table could donate the cash to a frontlines women’s safety service instead.
It would seem Chalmers’ chief objective to prove that he was a “responsible economic manager™” who could fight inflation and deliver a surplus trumped everything, blinding this government to the political urgency and potential political peril of action or inaction in this space.
The optics were just so, so wrong.
As we headed into the budget, I was powerfully struck by how obscenely out of touch Labor’s top ministers charged with guiding our economy — and making life-changing (correction, life-saving) decisions about how we spend money — seemed to be.
First, there was a photo published in Guardian Australia last week just one day after the Domestic, Sexual, and Family Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin held crisis talks in Canberra to address the horrific rise in femicides. The treasurer stared serenely off into the distance with the famous “budget tree” in full bloom behind him, presumably conjuring a happy future “made in Australia”. The headline read “sneak peek predicts higher wages and tax breaks — but no Jobseeker increase”.
Never mind that just a week before, Angela Jackson, the current chair of the Women in Economics Network and a member of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, gave a speech for the ages at the National Press Club in which she argued that women’s economic security and women’s safety were inextricably linked. Women will never be safe as long as they face poverty and homelessness when they leave a violent relationship.
“What we need to see is a substantial increase in those income support payments, including JobSeeker, to really address those underlying and enduring impacts of poverty, particularly on single parents and particularly on those who have escaped family violence,” Jackson argued. That call was backed by an open letter with more than 300 “prominent women” as signatories this week, including Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner Anna Cody.
But, yeah, no… seemed to be the treasurer’s response. Have you seen my surplus?
Then, on the morning of the budget, finance Minister Katy Gallagher, who is also the minister for women, opted for similar optics. Posting a photo to X of herself and Chalmers, both smiling ear to ear and striding purposely, she wrote: “Another surplus is a powerful demonstration of Labor’s responsible economic management, which makes room for cost of living relief and investments in the future.” Et tu Katy?
I will say that it was heartening to hear the treasurer say the words “care economy” more than once on budget night, and to see the budget recognise the need to tackle the undervaluing of women’s work through pay increases in aged care and now early years education and care. This is a step change, the seeds of which were planted years ago. But that just made the failure of this government to usher in a comparable step change in women’s safety, one that recognises the inextricable link between women’s safety and women’s economic security and properly backs the frontline, all the more profoundly disappointing.
Following last week’s gendered violence crisis talks, I wrote that one of the things that gave me hope was that we are now in a new political paradigm with the power of the women’s vote firmly cemented at the last election. All I can say now is: Read. The. Room.
If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault or family violence, call 1800-RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit www.1800RESPECT.org.au.
Did the budget do enough for women? Let us know your thoughts 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.
