Albanese’s women are not all losers

Given that many women are business owners set to benefit from the government’s instant asset write-off and the new JobMaker scheme, was Anthony Albanese’s depiction of women being ‘left behind’ a fair accusation, or overreach? Picture: Getty Images

In a budget with so many winners, Labor has cast an entire gender as the losers.

“In the budget on Tuesday night we had 51 per cent of our population left behind, just forgotten,” Anthony Albanese told his partyroom on Thursday.

In his budget-in-reply speech later that night the Opposition Leader said women had been ­“reduced to a footnote” in the 2021 budget.

It is a risky political ploy, casting the “loser” net so wide; especially given that many women are business owners set to benefit from the government’s instant asset write-off and the new JobMaker scheme incentivising them to employ more people. And that millions of female taxpayers are set to receive income tax cuts.

But is it a fair accusation, or overreach?

Josh Frydenberg opened the government’s flank to criticism on Tuesday, first raising expectations that women were to be big winners in a big-spending budget, then falling a zero short.

The Treasurer said women had suffered disproportionately higher job losses during the pandemic, but as health ­restrictions eased, women had filled 60 per cent of the 458,000 jobs that had flowed back into the economy since May. More was to be done, however.

“We are determined to see ­female workforce participation reach its pre-COVID-19 record high,” he said.

Then the let-down. In a budget where the word “billions” was thrown around like confetti, Frydenberg announced just $240m in measures and programs to support more women into STEM ­careers, encouraging entrepreneurship and keeping them safe at home and at work.

Mr Frydenberg’s speech didn’t use the word “women” once outside this section of his speech, apart from a reference to adding a drug to combat ovarian cancer to the PBS. Perhaps he thought to do so when speaking about the 11 million taxpayers receiving a tax cut or the support for small business owners risked being patronising.

But it left the impression, for some at least, that the budget’s commitment to women started and ended with that $240m. Enough for Mr Albanese to drive in a wedge.

Beyond the speech itself, a deeper debate has taken place about whether a “gender lens” was, or should be, applied to the budget.

“If you don’t apply a gender lens in policy development, then outcomes … will in so many areas favour men,” Mr Albanese told his partyroom.

The argument made by leading economists and women’s groups is that the job-creating measures contained in the budget are skewed toward the manufacturing sectors where there is more male employment, rather than into the female-dominated caring and services sectors. And with males making up a significant majority of apprentices, the newly-announced wage subsidies will also disproportionately support men.

Deloitte Access Economics partner Nicki Hutley argues the JobMaker hiring credit, which cuts out for newly employed workers over 35, will particularly hurt the chances of women looking to rejoin the workforce after having children.

Chief Executive Women president Sue Morphett agreed. “This budget does little to provide opportunities for older women and harness their contribution to recovery.”

Mr Albanese made a $6.2bn investment in childcare the centrepiece of his budget reply, saying it was an investment both in the development of 0-5-year-olds in their critical learning years and a productivity driver for the nation as it stopped the disincentive women currently have to work beyond three days. He said it was worth an estimated $4bn a year to the economy.

Scott Morrison has bristled at the depiction of his government and the budget as anti-women, saying he wouldn’t listen to the “voices of division”, and the government was already spending $9bn a year on childcare subsidies. Labor’s policy would favour rich families, he said.

In such a big-spending budget, measures directly aimed at driving more women back into the workforce through greater investment in the services sector, and making childcare more ­affordable as a long-term productivity measure, could have been an “and”, not an “or” for the government.

But for Mr Albanese to suggest all women in Australia had been reduced to a budget footnote was a talking point too far.