Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Women's Budget Statement, which at least this year is less of a glossy booklet than it was last year, when it was belatedly published several hours after the budget. At least this time there is a proper booklet. But unfortunately it bears no resemblance to a women's budget impact statement, which used to be delivered as part of the budget until Tony Abbott axed it in 2014. I believe he was Minister for Women at the time, so he was really kicking goals there for women, as he did so well in that role! What the women of Australia actually deserved was a women's budget impact statement to be applied as a gender lens on decisions that were taken prior to things ending up in the budget and a gender lens applied to then assess the impacts for women of the budget. That would have been a true women's budget impact statement. That is what we still do not have and have not had since 2014, when Tony Abbott got rid of it.

Nonetheless, I want to take the opportunity to respond formally on the record to some of the components of last night's so-called women's budget—jumping the shark a little bit there, because in fact it's been described as all icing and no cake, and many of the budgetary measures, some of which are positive, only last a handful of years and then rapidly drop off. But that's not the worst of it.

I want to start, firstly, with domestic violence funding. We know that domestic violence is at an epidemic level, with one in three women being affected by it. The figure is one in five for sexual violence. It's horrific and it's everywhere. We're starting to talk about it more and more and, sadly, more and more people are reporting that that is what they're now facing. We know it's not just physical violence; it's emotional violence. Something called coercive control is getting a good amount of attention. It's a huge problem.

For many, many years the frontline service response sector folk have been crying out for support so that they don't have to turn women away. We've heard horrific stories from various different people, whether they be crisis accommodation, women's shelters, legal advice or other services to support women when they flee violence. Year after year they have said that they don't have enough funding to help everyone and that they are having to turn people away. They don't want to, but they simply don't have the resources to help everyone. So, when we heard rumours that there might be an increase in funding for frontline response services, we took some hope from that. But, sadly, although at first blush what we saw last night might seem good, in that the funding has been doubled, even after that doubling of funding, it is still one-quarter of what the sector has asked for so that they can help everyone that reaches out to seek their help. I don't think that's going to fly. Women aren't stupid. We remember the events of this year, and for many years we have known that the sector is drastically underfunded and that far more attention is needed on the issue. So delivering one-quarter of what's required is not good enough.

More and more women keep dying. This is deadly serious in every sense of the word. For the government to think they can do a little bit but not go the whole way is just not okay. It's not like they're short of dough, because in fact there was $62 billion in handouts for big corporates in last night's budget. There was $51 billion in fossil fuel subsidies over four years in last night's budget. They're not short of money. It's about where they're allocating it. They've chosen to once again underfund frontline domestic violence services. They have chosen to champion that they've doubled a deeply inadequate amount, which is still inadequate; it's a quarter of what's required. That's our main objection to this budget—that it talked a big game but it is underdelivering for women.

There's a little bit more money for child care, but people are going to have to wait quite a while for that. And there are very prescribed criteria to get the benefit, and it's a pretty marginal benefit at that. The Greens think that early childhood education should be free. It should be available and accessible and free to all kids, who desperately need that early childhood education to set them up for a great and hopeful life, to help aid workforce participation. But it's very interesting that we're told that child care belongs as part of the women's spend. Well, yes, we bear a disproportionate amount of the care load, but it shouldn't be that way. It's a bit 1950s, folks, to be pitching it as a women's measure when in fact it's a measure for families. Anyway, that is yet more 1950s rhetoric from this government.

There was a welcome announcement—a very small one, but a welcome one—to scrap the threshold of $450 a month for superannuation. If you earnt below that amount, your employers didn't have to pay you super. Of course, that further compounded the retirement income equality gap. We know that women retire with, on average, just less than half of what their male counterparts do. Removing that threshold is a small step in the right direction. But where is the superannuation on paid parental leave? There was a budget leak saying that that would be in there. Women take a lot of caring gaps from the workforce. Adding super to PPL has been a longstanding ask and would have been a very effective addition to that welcome scrapping of the $450 threshold. There's been no explanation of why that leak wasn't followed through on. We don't know. Everyone thinks it's a good idea, yet this government has not come to the table.

The other thing the government has not come to the table on is decent funding for respectful relationships education. This government wasted $4 million on a 'milkshake' consent video, which was rightfully pilloried for being bizarre, confusing and actively harmful to the message about consent. They managed to waste $4 million on that, but, in this budget, there's not a single cent for recognised, expert-drafted respectful relationships education. Our Watch—which is the national primary prevention agency, the peak body, the experts—have designed, piloted and evaluated as successful a respectful relationships program that's been rolled out in Victoria and in Queensland. It works. That would have been an ideal opportunity for this government to redeem themselves after the horror that was the milkshake video—the abomination of that six minutes pouring $4 million down the drain while actively worsening the issue. But, no, there was no funding for respectful relationships in last night's budget. What another missed opportunity.

JobSeeker, which, sadly, women disproportionately receive, again, is below the poverty line. We were told that we're supposed to be happy with a 57c increase a day. No, that's not enough for people to live on. Women are disproportionately relying on JobSeeker, and this government once again is letting them down. But perhaps the biggest gap in the budget last night for women was a complete absence of investment in housing. We're in a housing crisis in this country. And it's not just a housing crisis in terms of crisis accommodation; it's a housing crisis for transitional housing and for long-term affordable housing. There is no affordable housing at any of those stages of someone's needs. The fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in Australia used to be women over 55. After COVID, it's women over 45, yet this government has not a cent to invest in public housing or to seriously boost crisis housing.

If you want economic stimulus and if you want to create jobs, build people homes. There is no better way to stimulate the economy and generate the jobs that you claim to care about and to fix the housing crisis at the same time. But, no, this budget simply retains, I think, $8.5 billion for the negative gearing and capital gains perks. In fact, I think that's just the capital gains component. There are massive handouts to investors who own five or six homes, but there is absolutely nothing on public housing and this weird two per cent approach to loans for single parents. No single parent I know has got a spare two per cent for a home loan deposit. It would be 10 grand if you're lucky and you can find a cheap house. It's not going to happen. This budget is an attempt to distract women from this government's appalling track record. They are trying to sell us a pup. It's not enough funding for the things that are needed, and the women of Australia deserve better. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.