• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Australia Awaken - ignite your torches

Narratives from Down Under

  • First Light
  • Awards
  • Budget
  • Employment
  • Race
  • Refugees
  • Political
  • Sex
  • Taxes
  • Voting
  • Women.
  • Login & Msgs

Women

Morrison’s feminine appeal

March 27, 2022 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

From THAT women’s network logo to a corseted perspective where he can only understand women through the lens of his wife or daughters; Scotty from Marketing can’t recognise the inequality, bias and dangers that women face.

Trying to defend himself, he ran the following list past Kymba Cahill during an intense interview on Perth Radio show Mix94.5. [See Fig 1.] Scott Morrison raised these points asserting that the coalition had made significant progress on:

  • women’s employment and unemployment,
  • Women in executive roles and gender pay equity,
  • domestic violence funding.

 

Fig 1: Extract from News article on Morrison's actions on behalf of women
Fig 1: Extract from News article on Morrison’s actions on behalf of women

Women’s Employment

Using unemployment figures from the ABS is a dubious exercise, as I have noted previously, but this will be the data to which Scott is referring [see Table 1]. According to ABS, Females employed in the workplace in Australia in Feb 2022 was 6,407,730 (Men were 6,964,2820). This left 256,378 of the female workforce unemployed. That is a 3.85% unemployment rate for women in the workforce. I will dispute this claim later.

In the meantime, the lack of inclusion of zero-hours workers (which the ABS calculates) in the unemployment percentages is a blatant misrepresentation. People with registered employees (usually in the Gig economy) offered zero hours of work in a month and zero dollars for pay, while considered “employed”, are not segregated by gender in the ABS stats. However, people in employment are segregated by gender. So calculating the ratio of women in the workforce to men at 47.9% in February 2022, provides a reasonable basis for extrapolation. Zero-hours workers for February 2022 were 130,000 people, and multiplying that by 47.9% for February gives you an estimate that 62,678 workers were likely female.

Adding zero-hours female workers back to ABS’s unemployment numbers means that 319,056 women (or 4.79% of the workforce) are without paid work. That means women in employment dropped to 6,345,053. Making the same relative month-by-month calculations over the last three years generates a female ratio that varied between 49.9% and 46.4%, resulting in the Fig 2 Graph.

Another consideration is that since our Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, claims our economy has recovered to pre-pandemic levels (i.e. 2019). Commencing with ABS stats from the beginning of 2019 will allow some trend analysis. Of course, other journalists have demonstrated Josh’s claims are fallacious propaganda, but let’s overlook that for now.

Fig 2: ABS's Female Employment estimates in Australia 2019 to Feb 2022
Fig 2: ABS’s Female Employment estimates in Australia 2019 to Feb 2022

Looking at the trends in the Graph for Full-time, part-time and workforce numbers for women, it is evident none of the categories has made a full recovery. Compared to February 2019, the ABS figures claim: 5.996 million women were employed and 314K unemployed. However, it is 375K, if you add back the female proportion of zero-hours “employed” estimated in Feb 2019. That would have reduced our wage-earning employed to 5.954 million. So Morrison seems correct that more females are employed.

Still, it should be apparent that his claiming credit is a misdirection. Over that same three years, the total workforce moved from 6.310 million to 6.664 million. The population of women over 15 went from 10.417 million to 10.687 million. Unless Morrison is claiming credit for population growth or women entering the workforce – both of which are rising at similar levels. Is a rising level of employment, therefore, something for which he can claim the credit? Significantly when they have not even risen to a level that an extrapolation of 2019 figures would predict? What legislative change has Morrison’s government passed that has even achieved this underwhelming rise in employment?

As for “the lowest level of unemployment” for women, the evidence for real domestic unemployment for women demonstrates otherwise. This is where I will review not just ABS data but also include zero-hours data, Jobseeker and Youth Allowance and Roy Morgan’s unemployment figures. These measures demonstrate that unemployment exists at around 8.5% for women. This was lower than current levels for all of the second half of 2019. However, just as zero-hours “employees” are not segregated into gender statistics, neither are Roy Morgan’s estimates. Roy Morgan’s methodology has more in common with the Jobseeker and Youth Allowance as a measure of unemployment. Accordingly, I have used their month-by-month ratio of men and women on both stats to extrapolate the proportion of Roy Morgan’s total estimates, likely female. The results in the following graph [see Fig 3] and accompanying sources and internal explanations demonstrate why Morrison’s claim is inaccurate. Please see my articles here and here if you want further explanations concerning this multi-data analysis.

Fig 3: Female Unemployment measure variations in Australia from 2019 to Feb 2022
Fig 3: Female Unemployment measure variations in Australia from 2019 to Feb 2022

More women on Boards and gender pay gaps.

I assume Morrison boasting of more women on Government boards doesn’t include former Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate, who is still waiting on his apology. It should be noted that “more than 50%” of women on government boards is larger by a factor of 0.2%. In short, it is 50.2%. The history of that climb resembles a long and tortuous effort. Not unlike Morrison’s appointment of women to his cabinet – another point he raised.

This may be true for a tiny percentage of women who represent the country’s government executives. Still, many social and economic issues for women who are non-board members (i.e. the vast majority) remain unresolved. Women’s Agenda publishes a range of these issues, like sexual assault through to women’s career anxiety. As for Morrison’s claims about the gender pay gap, beyond some minor fluctuations, it has sat around 14% for the last three years. Taking credit for a recent 0.4% drop is hyperbole when you consider it depends:

1. entirely on what State and with whom you are employed,

2. and the changing state of employment and unemployment. [see Figs 2 & 3]

One doesn’t have to take a human’s claim that falling gender pay gaps are fallacious in a volatile employment economy with stagnating wages. Even internet bots are pointing out the disparity.

Domestic Violence funding

The Domestic Violence Package of $1.1 billion announced by the Minister for Women’s Safety, Anne Ruston’s media release from October 2021, is full of self-congratulatory praise for their “landmark” contribution to DV.

Keep in mind that the DV funding was not considered sterling before this point. Monash University’s assessment in 2020 was that previous funding arrangements for women were woefully inadequate. Although the subsequent $1.1 Billion in the following budget might improve on previous efforts, “it does not yet reflect the level of investment so desperately needed to address, interrupt and ultimately prevent what is a national crisis.” according to two Violence prevention experts. Other critics have noted it is hardly enough, and falls short of the need.

In truth, all this expenditure is a transparent effort to put a bandage on the gaping wound left in the wake of

  • Brittany Higgins’s allegations,
  • Grace Tame’s public condemnation of Morrison,
  • the former Liberal MP Julia Banks’s confession or Industry Minister Karen Andrews’ complaints,
  • Morrison’s disparagement of Christine Holgate,
  • the Jenkins review,
  • Gladys Berejiklian’s and other’s texts,
  • Coalition staffers masturbating over the desks of female MPs, and
  • the innumerable stories about the misogynistic predators in Parliament, such as Barnaby Joyce, Christian Porter and Andrew Laming.

But while that was a long sentence, no sentences of any length have been applied to any of the misogynistic male perpetrators responsible for these abuses.

Despite the massive protests by women over these issues, not even the Minister for Women, Marise Payne, showed solidarity by attending “March 4 Justice” at Parliament House. And I suspect we all recall Morrison’s bullet point based response in Parliament to that protest.

Assessment

So yes, Morrison has poured in more money into domestic violence, but it isn’t anywhere near enough to deal with the scope of the problem. Yes, employment has risen but so has unemployment amongst women. Yes, the ruling class women at the height of the government echelons have enjoyed more executive work. But, in contrast, the non-executive women (known as the vast majority or working-class) are still increasingly unemployed, poorly and unequally paid, compared to their male counterparts.

So if this is Morrison’s idea of “action” in response to women’s needs, dare I suggest his “action” is quite definably “small” and “inadequate” to meet the real needs of women in Australia?

 

Filed Under: Politicians, Women

Trump – fascist or fascistic?

December 5, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Philosophically changing landscape.

A disturbing consistency
A disturbing consistency

Just before the election, President elect Donald Trump, published his intentions for his first 100 days in office.  It is insular and sequestered towards his take on focused American interests.  From building walls to encouraging non-renewable pollution builders like shale, oil, natural gas and coal, which will result in undermining climate rectification.  Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a boon many would welcome, as alternative RCEP will be far more beneficial to the Australian economy.

Post-Truth world.

Tony Abbott the masterful beguiler of the Aussie Punter!
Tony Abbott the masterful beguiler of the Aussie Punter!

Whatever your values on these intentions, what is emerging, is that since the election, he’s made statements that are at variance with the dialogue from his rallies and his initial plans.  That “lies”, featured in Trump and Clinton’s campaign dialogue, has become par for the course for political bargaining with voters. This “post-truth” phenomena drew criticism that the Trump campaign countered with assertions that the media should not be ‘fact-checkers’.  Since the election, building walls, the death of Obamacare, the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, and the demise of the Iran peace treaty are all being quickly watered down in Washington.  At least Tony Abbott waited a few months before he instigated proposals to make cuts to education, cuts to health, change to pensions, increasing GST and cuts to the ABC and SBS.  While the Senate foiled many of the LNP’s valiant efforts to break their promises, much of the public showed their willingness to ignore Abbott’s apparent about-face. But lies are a negotiation the public has struck with politics for decades. Unless one engages in extensive fact-checking and pragmatic reasoning, such lies remain unchallenged; and many can’t be bothered to do so.

Observations of Fascism.

Some folk listened to their Grandfather's stories
Some folk listened to their Grandfather’s stories

Trump’s plans or renegotiations (or “lies”) are admittedly not standard Republican ideology.   His thinking is hard to pin down, echoing sentiments from across the political spectrum. Trump is something else altogether.  An interesting observation was made by an American teacher, which has landed her in hot water.   She was teaching students about the parallels between the rise of Trump and German dictator Adolf Hitler.  It’s an observation that has also been made by veteran Jewish Americans who fear the rise of a “new Hitler”.

Gianni Riotta in the Atlantic disagrees with the assertion Trump is a fascist. She talks about a “brand of fascism” defined by Mussolini’s original Partito Nazionale Fascista rule.  Being of Italian heritage, she is very wed to that being the only legitimate fascism.   For folk like Riotta, unless they are goose-stepping down Broadway, it isn’t fascism.   As though the final goal defines the process, but not, until you get there. Fascism deniers hold to the rather odd presumption that unless we have set up gulags in the manner that former Italian fascists did, then we are not there yet. Perhaps we should poll the unwilling residents of Guantanamo Bay, Manus and Nauru.
As Robert O. Paxton in his book “The Anatomy of Fascism” says, “Fascism does not rest explicitly upon an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, their unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. […] In a way utterly unlike the classical “isms,” the rightness of fascism does not depend on the truth of any of the propositions advanced in its name.”  So Riotta attempt to define it as an elaborated philosophical system or fixed creed rather than a syndrome or a “beehive of contradictions“, lies on somewhat erroneous premises.  Or as Nicholas Clairmont (also from “The Atlantic”) explained, “But the debate over the definition of fascism is much richer than Riotta covered.“

Jobs and Growth.

 It is not an insignificant difference that America is a mature democracy, where Germany was not, at the time of Hitler’s rise.  Hitler was elected Chancellor in January 1933 in what was a relatively new democratic system established in 1919.  And in this latter American variation, there are both systematic differences and protections in place to stall degeneration into the Nazi’s historical outcomes.  Nevertheless, striking similarities remain. Like America, the German economy had hit rock-bottom and was at the time recovering.   Hitler also vowed to pull out of the Versailles treaty and repayments, much like Trump is pledging to renegotiate NAFTA and cancel the Pacific Trade Agreements.  Both were promising to protect internal jobs and build infrastructure.  In short, the familiar politico battle cry of “Jobs and Growth” was on both their agendas.
As Llewellyn Rockwell  writes, “He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits.“
Can Trump can be similarly successful?  Trump’s immediate promotion of jobs growth was very similar in manner to Malcolm Turnbull’s approach in providing jobs for unemployed friends. Trump has engaged the former mayor Rudy Giuliani (if you go to the link, note Rudy’s unusual nickname), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, and former federal prosecutor Jeff Sessions.  Not unlike Malcolm Turnbull’s recycling of former MPs or George Brandis’s job stacking, Trump is “bringing jobs back” … to lobbyists and republican insiders.  One of his more controversial “jobs for the boys” decisions has been the selection of  Steve Bannon as Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon is the chairman of “Breitbart” the alt-right anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, conspiracy filled news site.  No doubt some readers will find that description a little harsh, and I’d have to concede that “news site” is probably inappropriate.  Trump’s choice of a strategist, is emboldening the rise of identity politics in America.  Reminiscent of a familiar Nazi German salutations, “Hail Trump” echoed from attendees at Richard Spencer’s recent annual conference of the National Policy Institute in Washington.

Historical similarities & differences.

Simple Comparisons
Simple Comparisons

Like Trump, Hitler was not the popular candidate.  Political machinations got Hitler into power, as he controlled the largest block of seats. For Trump, his path to power was winning the electoral college, not the popular vote. Both leaders lead a racist mass movement, along with being misogynistic and ultra-nationalistic, eliciting violent reactions from their attendees at national rallies.  The difference in Hitler’s case was protesters who tried to shout him down, were ejected by Hitler’s army friends armed with rubber truncheons.  Trump was not so organised, but his followers still ejected peaceful protesters, violently.  Trump displays contempt for liberal democratic norms and has identified a class of people he is quite happy to direct blame for America’s failings. Muslims replace Jews as the preferred targets despite the unconstitutional nature of his desires. Hitler, equally, had contempt for the Weimar Republic Constitution which changed Germany from a monarchy to a parliamentary democracy. The original Nazi party was filled with disenfranchised youth as a movement, whereas the Tea party Republican adherents found their primary support from older white men. Trump represents an avatar for their anger, marginalisation and resentment.  In both points of history, the people had lost faith in the ability of their government to look after them.  Coupled with a loss of confidence in the civil system, they sought a political option that came from outside the “system”.

Precluding Minorities.

Capitalistic support for Fascism
Capitalistic support for Fascism

Neither Hitler, not Trump spoke about exterminating the ethnic minority they were using as scapegoats, in their pre-election period.   Hitler only talked about expelling Jews and removing their civil rights.    Trump’s platform was to deport 2 million illegal immigrants, to eliminate birth right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and keeping Muslims out of America.  There are differences worth considering here too.  In the 1930’s data retention machines were primitive, but still, IBM rose to the challenge with a punch card sorting/cross indexing system to evaluate the census data to locate, identify and catalogue Jews. Without IBM’s help, the mass extermination of the Jews would have been logistically impossible.  Today’s technology is streets ahead of anything IBM had then.   IBM’s census collecting apparatus is so more sophisticated and accurate now, despite the issues Australia suffered via IBM on their last census.  The American government with access to the NSA’s extensive data records on Americans – as Edward Snowden has revealed – can so quickly identify ethnic minorities.

 

The Post-truth results on Trump.
The Post-truth results on Trump.

Hitler promised to make Germany great and restore national pride.   In echoes of Charles Lindbergh‘s “America First” isolationists rhetoric, Trump claimed, “I promise to make America great” and then spoke of isolating America. Hitler threatened and did persecute his political opponents, and Trump threatened to jail Hillary Clinton during public debates.  He has since reneged on that, but his earlier rhetoric was worrying.  Honesty among politicians in a “post-truth” era is unexpected, but even in Hitler’s time, a former finance minister described Hitler as thoroughly untruthful. Washington Post gave Trump 3.4 “Pinocchios” (as compared to Hillary Clinton getting 2.2), and noted of the 92 Trump statements that were fact checked, only 11 were found to fall into the category of mostly true or neutral. Attitudes towards women by both Hitler and Trump were quite simply appalling and deeply misogynistic.  Hitler and Mussolini declared themselves as opposed to feminism, while Hitler’s predominant offence was in objectifying women for reproductive purposes.  As for Trump’s Billy Bush conversation, I am opposed to giving that any more oxygen than it already, by linking to it here.  If perchance you don’t know to what I refer, then all I can say is, “Welcome back, I trust that your absence from civilisation over the last few months has not been unduly traumatic”.

The results of Fascism take time.

Some are old enough to remember
Some are old enough to remember

Under Hitler, unemployment figures began to drop. Public work schemes were introduced, and the German Labour Front was set up to “protect” workers. Measures to ensure the leisure time of the work force was entrenched. It was a good month after he was “elected” in 1933 before Hitler began suspending several constitutional protections on civil rights.  Jews didn’t lose their citizenship until 1935; about the same time conscription was brought in. Government income increased to ℛℳ15 billion Reichsmarks by 1939 (from ℛℳ10B in 1928) but then spending increased too. The invasion of Poland didn’t occur till 1939. Hitler had been in “legitimate” power for seven years by then.  If Trump stays in power for two terms, he will have eight years to bring to fruition what he desires and the fact that four of the last five presidents served a full eight years is not encouraging.  If you hold to the belief that Trump isn’t intimately aware of Hitler’s strategies, then you don’t want to read this.

What have you done?

Of course there are subtle differences. It is 80 years later, after all. But in essence, how is any of this not similar in spirit (if not exact fact) to the rise of Hitler’s Fascist German Nazi Party?  And on that point, I should acknowledge the impeccable research work of my wife,  who provided me with far more comparative information than I could fit into this one article.  Perhaps as Jeet Heer says, ”even if Trump is only fascistic rather than a fascist, that’s more than scary enough“. However you phrase it to make yourself feel more comfortable and sleep well at night, in the end the question remains, where will the rise of Trumpism take America and the rest of the world?  Good luck America!

Filed Under: Foreign, Politicians, Race, Women

Misogyny in Leadership

February 21, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Outgoing Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty
Outgoing Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty

When Rosie Batty stepped down from the Australian of the year and David Morrison stepped up, albeit, with considerable controversy after his appointment, there was a consistent demand for the leadership of the country to address sexism and violence against women proactively.  While this columnist has recently highlighted the current government’s continuing misogynous approach to legislative drafting, it’s time to consider in other respects how our government is, (or is not) leading the battle for change.

Leadership style is a significant predictor on how any organisation will respond to issues that arise. In fact, while “trickle down economics” is a recognisable farce, trickle down culture is a psychologically generated reality. There is a premise in organisational psychology that the people in an organisation will adopt aspects of the leadership with which they are provided.  It is just as applicable in the context of a national ethos as it is a corporate one.  So how is it that our national leadership, protects and facilitates progress for women in our society?

Malcolm's Words, to be followed by what deeds?
Malcolm’s words, to be followed by what deeds?

On the plus side, Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull returned $100M of the $300M Abbott cut from the front-line support of domestic violence issues and commented: “…  violence against women begins with disrespecting women.”  Turnbull then went on to admit, “this is a big cultural shift.”  It was a remarkable admission from a party, which not long before, had been embarrassed by Julia Gillard’s famous speech on Abbott’s Misogyny.  Lauded internationally by everything but the mainstream media, her speech went viral to the clapping of women high fiving one another – or where alone – thrusting a fist into the air. Of course, defending the charge against the leadership of the day by proclaiming Abbott was married and had three daughters and that he did not see sexist signs he was standing next to when rallying the faithful, did not help.  On the first point, should not his defenders be less concerned about what Abbott accomplished for his daughters? Rather the focus should be on women who were not his daughters?

Tony Abbott in front of "ditch the witch" - Photo: Andrew Meares
Tony Abbott in front of “ditch the witch” – Photo: Andrew Meares

The signs proclaiming Julia as a “witch” were ironic given the controversy that would later surround Peter Dutton.   Aside from ignoring the signs of the time, Abbott’s history of frequent sexist gaffes and attitudes did not exhibit leadership in support of women either before or after becoming their ministerial representative.  But you may correctly point out that we have moved on from his leadership.

Turnbull’s reign, of course, sliced into a dreadful recent history where women in Australia had suffered violent deaths –  84 in 2014 and 79 in 2015 – most due to domestic violence.  If foreign terrorists had inflicted these deaths, the government would have declared a state of emergency.

Malcolm Turnbull, although, vigorously defended all of Tony Abbott’s policy decisions as evidenced by an interview with Alan Jones – the transcript of which – is on his website.  He later released a Christmas Budget with changes to Medicare, Family Benefits, Day Care amongst numerous cuts that will disproportionately affect women.

Initially, when Turnbull returned a third of the Abbott cuts, the funding was redirected to the placid response of alternative legal aid, police counselling, locks, CCTV & 20,000 mobile phones.  Who would benefit from these offerings – security companies, police, communication providers (which was Turnbull’s last portfolio) and locksmiths certainly?

Shelters from confrontation.
Shelters from confrontation.

But if you are a woman being abused, to where do you run?  Most shelters once supported are now closed.  The new $5M website with its “RESPECT helpline” offers trained police who may:
1.    believe you; (disbelief was a problem previously); and.
2.     put you in contact with a locksmith and security advisor to setup your CCTV.
This will not assist if your partner comes home drunk or angry and having spotted him in advance on your CCTV, you seek to grab your kids and head out the back door to a shelter. Oh, that’s right – what shelter?  (Abbott closed those!)
You might find a newly formed one-stop legal support group to advise you.  However, they are unlikely to have experienced staff, because all experienced legal practices moved on when Abbott defunded their pre-existing services.  Knowledge and intellectual capital take time to accumulate.

Victorian Police Statistics
Victorian Police Statistics

It’s important for those in leadership to understand that:
•    at least 62% of domestic abuse occurs in the victim’s home. (Some have suggested it as high as 73% as the ABS statistics do not include unreported assaults);
•    only  3.8% of assaulted women are hurt by strangers. In fact statistically, your child is safer with a stranger (despite the claims of stranger danger) than they are from a child’s immediate or extended family.

Women besotted with Malcolm Turnbull
Women besotted with Malcolm Turnbull

So victims often need somewhere else to go – as do their children. Cutting resources for safe support is therefore not showing much leadership on the issue, despite Mr Turnbull himself having successfully courted popularity amongst female voters.  The popularity that described his efforts in terms that ranged from that of “a good start…” to Mia Freedman’s associate’s reaction of “I can’t decide whether I want Malcolm Turnbull to adopt me or ravish me”.   Women have expressed significant hope for the positive and well-articulated message Turnbull delivered, despite no gains in significant policy for safe support against domestic violence.  Much verbosity but a domestic violence package that was too small, misdirected and some may suggest a patronisingly political snow job to solicit loud applause simply because it appeared to be different to Abbott – despite doing nothing to undermined Abbott’s previous funding cuts.  In fact, Tony Abbott has been consistently and correctly stating, that nothing has actually changed since his ejection from leadership,  regarding what policy he instituted.

"First Dog" makes sexism clear.
“First Dog” makes sexism clear.

But even Turnbull’s message of strong condemnation of abuse of women has been tainted. Jamie Brigg’s unsolicited advances on a woman smack of all the hypocrisy of male privilege and misuse of power.  Thankfully he was dismissed by the unanimous vote from his party brethren, including Peter Dutton.    The hypocrisy of Peter Dutton’s “mad [effing] witch” text about a female journalist who dared to point out Brigg’s misogyny just reinforces the denigration.  Peter Dutton’s faux pas with his texts, clearly demonstrates that despite voting with his party for Brigg’s dismissal (presumably to be seen to be politically correct), his private sympathies were for Jamie Briggs.

What leadership looks and sounds like!
What leadership looks and sounds like!

So why does Turnbull fail to decry this behaviour amongst his ranks in an unambiguous manner that Lieutenant General David Morrison addressed the defence force over misogyny in the army?  It is absolutely clear that David Morrison is completely unambiguous in his delivery of the speech – written by Cate McGregor – about what he considers unacceptable behaviour.  Where as there is a great deal of ambiguity in Malcolm’s approach.  He seems ambivalent, cagey and unwilling to “prosecute” his front bench. Surely it is time to be unambiguous about any sexism.  Good leadership must dictate an unequivocal stance.

Articles reporting on Rosie Batty’s attendance at Mr Turnbull’s announcement of the return of one-third of the Abbott funding cut were expressed as a “good start” and “heading in the right direction” (perhaps in the hope they may be witness to the missing $200M being returned).    However, there would appear to be no evidence from party leaders that they have even left their starting blocks on these issues.  The starter gun has sounded, echoed and dissipated and it is past time that our leaders implement real progress in culture, word and deed. Without all three, Turnbull’s words remain as nothing more than the cleverly articulated whispers of empty “sweet nothings” into the ears of Australian women.

Filed Under: Politicians, Women

Misogyny in Legislation

February 7, 2016 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The legislated law consists of the rules and sanctions to which a society agrees. But legislation may itself be immoral or moral such the facilitation of slavery Australia once engaged in or the apparent abolition of slavery.  The founders of many western countries believed that emerging legislation would often require a constitution for a baseline moral imperative.  It was hoped the constitution would guide the emerging politics of their fledgling nation.   Centuries later the limitations of their predictive capacity of how a nation would evolve are evident.  Australia’s founders, for example, would not have contemplated women’s rights to vote, or to be treated equally in private or public endeavours.   Let’s face it, England was setting up an offshore penal colony much like Australia has been doing in the 21st Century to refugees, so women’s rights were not high on the agenda.  The struggles of only a century ago by woman to acquire the right to vote as depicted in the current movie, “The Suffragette” remind us that political legislative reflection of societies morality can be slow to catch on.  So in the 21st century, how does our legislative morality stack up on the subject of the protection of women?

When Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, apparently appeared to have reversed Mr Abbott’s harsh cuts by returning $100M in funding to support domestic violence sufferers, it seemed the political morality had begun to shift.  Few focused on the fact that Abbott had cut $300M in the financing of legal aid, shelters and other support services for domestic violence.  In Abbott’s first fortnight in Sept 2013 he:

  •    dismantled a $1.5B in wage increases for 350K childcare workers (a female dominated workforce),
  •    appointed only one woman to his cabinet,
  •    announced his position as “Minister for Women” not held by a man since the 1970s – when it was created as a position,
  •    scrapped the Social Inclusion Board which provided guiding policy on poverty issues (suffered predominately by women).

His government’s asylum seeker record was particularly harsh on women.  He started by separating a refugee mother from her newborn baby in November. After that, he hid information about the government’s treatment of asylum seekers and the sexual assault and pressuring of women for sexual favours by the guards.    These failures of the duty of care were later revealed by the government’s own Moss Report after the government had disparaged Gillian Trigg’s earlier similar account.  Then, the independent Immigration Health Advisory Group for asylum seekers was disbanded in December which had been actively lobbying for attention to the health needs of female asylum seekers (including dental and neonatal health and adverse health consequences of trauma such as early menopause).

Abbott also:
•     suspended the Wage Connect program – despite its good outcomes for unemployed people, particularly  women attempting to return to the workforce after raising children;
•    converted Start-Up Scholarships to loans and increased student debt of 80,000 students by $1.2 billion, hampering those with discontinuous careers.  (wherein the loan interest accruals continued even during periods of low to no wage earning when debt repayment requirements are suspended)

The end of Wage Inequality ... news!
The end of Wage Inequality … news!

As for wage inequality, that appears to be disappearing. Apparently?!  Much just like the sloganistic “Stop the Boats” policy, it was not that the inequality or boats stopped – it was just that the reporting stopped.  In March Abbott removed the “red tape” which required companies to report on inequality in the workplace.  In this case, silence also descended for “on wage matters“, as all private sector companies with more than 100 employees no longer had to report on gender inequality in the workplace. What isn’t measured, isn’t managed.

Minister for Aboriginal desperation and deprivation
Minister for Aboriginal desperation and deprivation

Abbott’s failures towards indigenous people are a matter of very public record, especially as once their resident Minister.  (He was neither black nor female yet purportedly represented both.)  When he abolished the position of Co-ordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services he removed a position that managed dealings across a range of different government portfolios.  This increased the risk that women and children’s health and safety issues would deteriorate.

Short lists of Abbott's cuts to Women's safety
Short lists of Abbott’s cuts to Women’s safety

The AusAID graduate program eliminated 38 jobs when it was abolished.  The program had also contained equity requirements, which promoted female graduates.  When he defunded the Public Interest Advocacy Centre by $34M, it returned prioritising access to the law to those with the deepest pockets and the fattest bank balances instead of promoting public interests issues for economically disadvantaged groups, such as women.  Women were also more significantly impacted by Abbott’s scrapping of the Home Energy Saver Scheme which helps women from low-income households lower their electricity bills by an average of $300 less a year.   Interestingly on this point, delegating his greatest achievement as Minister for Women to throwing out climate legislation as it allegedly created a $550 a year benefit for the average family.  This achievement was somewhat undercut by killing the Home Energy Saver Scheme.  Aside from the fact many women thought to deal with climate mattered, for most households, the savings of $550 a year never eventuated.

Abbott also extended his reach to harm the interests of women overseas by cutting Australia’s contribution to overseas aid initially by $4.5 billion, and then even more later. These programs supported those in extreme poverty including the participation of girls in schools, micro businesses predominately run by women and interventions against domestic violence and women’s health. It is worth noting that Tanya Plibersek asked Malcolm Turnbull, “Can the Prime Minister confirm how much he will restore to the foreign aid program after the cabinet he was part of cut the budget by $11.3 billion?” He refused to answer and as yet nothing has changed.

Which leads us to the question – what has really changed now that Tony Abbott is out and Malcolm Turnbull is in?

From Abbott to Cash, which woman chose this?
From Abbott to Cash, which woman chose this?

Turnbull’s first reshuffle was to introduce more women on the Government’s front bench, although this flies in the face of his record on appointing women to boards and the small numbers of women in his previous shadow cabinet.  So is this a renewed genuine interest in women or a politically strategic face saving?  Which ever this is, is increasing the numbers of women in politics a major women’s issue? I am not sure the current female incumbent is doing anything of a better job. Instead, women are more likely to be seeking representation that results in being considered with equity and fairness in society, finance, politics and leadership.  The distinction therein does matter!

$100M returned is not $300M Stolen
$100M returned is not $300M Stolen

In relation to Malcolm’s $100M domestic violence funding support (always keeping in mind Abbott took $300M), the most generous comments by women support group representatives is: “It’s a great start…”. The reference to “start” pre-presumes there is more to come.  Everyone who can read the list of items being funded realises that it’s not refunding anything Abbott cut.  It is not refunding the women’s shelters Mr Abbott closed.   The crippling of Community Legal aid was hardly positive news for women.  Abbott’s wavering on defunding, then reneging, only to propose defunding later on, of Legal support entities resulted in many closures. There were few (possibly no) women’s groups desperately asking for phones, locks or security cameras and yet, that was what was offered.

Rebate Cuts or funding private insurance?
Rebate Cuts or funding private insurance?

Interestingly, the Turnbull government’s latest private health insurance survey is exploring allowing private health funds to discriminate against people on the basis of age, gender or health status.  Already the items removed from the Medicare Benefits Scheme target children’s surgeries and the removal of Pap smears, blood tests, urine tests and imaging services that will have a direct impact on Women’s health issues, not to mention the plan to phase out Family Tax Benefit (FTB) payments to the tune of $260.4 million in budget cuts.  In addition, the government has decided to:

  •    make cuts of $441.0 million to reduce the Child Care Subsidy,
  •    cap the number of places in the Interim Home Based Carer Subsidy program,
  •    remove the access to the affordability support element under the Community Child Care Fund, and
  •    slash $930.6 million so that family day care educators can not receive Commonwealth child care fee assistance for family day care sessions provided to their children on the same day that they provide family day care to other children.

(This last point is taken almost verbatim from the December Budget papers.)   Flexible, high quality & affordable childcare is essential to balance work and parenting responsibilities.  The government is not only making it less affordable but is not addressing access to childcare.  A recent report demonstrated that childcare centres in the city couldn’t cope with the demand by families, undermining the ability of women to return to work.  Why are we engaging in this penny pinching from women and children when there are billions in subsidies to mining, elite schools, private health insurers?    Changing the tax laws to stop tax avoidance by companies would earn billions more than what is being cut.   How can anyone suggest these cuts don’t represent a discriminatory bias?

Surely though, there is a voice for women in the Government that will be heard on issues of sex discrimination?  Is that not the role of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner?  It would if the role was filled appropriately. The last commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, left the post in early September before Tony Abbott was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull.  While Gillian Triggs was assigned to act in that role temporarily, being  onlyno full-time replacement has been announced under Mr Turnbull’s leadership, despite many questions as to why.   Many will be aware of how responsive this government has been to Gillian Trigg’s in her primary portfolio, so one can expect her to receive the same response in her part-time job.  Perhaps overburdening her is part of a strategy.

For a government that expresses such concern for women’s issues, what sort of legislative morality is Mr Turnbull exhibiting? Certainly not one that has changed anything significant in policy or legislation that Abbott initiated.  When I say “anything significant”, I am making a concession for DV support, being only one-third of the funding preciously cut.  The question should be though, how significant was that concession?  Given the domestic violence refunding added new and mostly unlobbied for support for our current death toll of two women a week, but revoked none of the cuts Abbott made, does this constitute a significant legislative change in support of women?  Should it more appropriately be seen as a cynically manipulative change to elicit applause from women because it was apparently differentiated from Abbott’s moral compass?  If the legislation and policies of politics have remained predominately unchanged in direction since Abbott left, what is the direction of moral compass exhibited overall by legislative and strategic direction of this government in regards the women of Australia?

Filed Under: Politicians, Women

Minister for Women?

July 2, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 2 Comments

NO Education for DV in Australia
NO Education for DV in Australia

DV hotline

In recent time the Government has expressed concerns for Domestic Violence issues but just how aligned is their rhetoric to their actions? The announcement of $4M for a Domestic Violence hotline has the appearance of affirmative action but then Abbott’s contribution as the Minister for Women, was to axe the funding for education in school around Domestic Violence. This in not the only axing he has been doing in this field. There are a significantly smaller numbers of  Women’s shelters available to women and children fleeing domestic Violence since funding to women’s shelters was axed.  The assertion that women are after all free to move away and seek shelter has been reduced to the point that what shelters are left are turning women away.  So $4M for a DV hotline is a tokenistic effort on the part of the government designed for maximising publicity and deflecting bad publicity at a relatively low cost.  It is an illusion to garner the publics gratitude that they are doing something for this cause in the hope that no one notices that the total sum of effort has still been a withdrawal of support for the victims of domestic Violence!  It is actually a cynical and manipulative gesture.

Tax, education, Shelters

Similarly cynical is Mr. Abbott’s recent contribution as the Minister for Women to axe family tax benefit for women in certain “classes”.  This was just after he’d axed the funding for education in school around Domestic Violence. You’d assume he thought, “Aren’t men better behaved nowadays now the Adults are in charge”? Women are after all free to move away from these bad domestic situations and seek shelter in … oh ummm  … there are a great deal less shelters now. The sum of these three axings is that it makes it even harder for women with children to escape domestic violence. Perhaps they could seek shelter in the Tattersalls club.  Apparently they are receptive to women nowadays. Wasn’t Abbott claiming they “they’ve now broken down the last barrier and they’ve made the men’s only club admit women!” when they celebrated International Women’s Day there?  Perfectly appropriate for him to celebrate the day there. He is the Minister for Women, he had membership. I mean who else needed to attend? Although perhaps the reality is that Tattersalls isn’t actually making any changes to protocol in so far as access to women is concerned.  , as they have always been allowed in. Unless of course they are seeking membership. Women have long been granted access, just not membership!  So I hardly think this is a sign of any change whatsoever.  I used to go to regular dance events at Tattersalls over a decade ago and I wasn’t there to dance with other Men. So there is nothing changed there as he stated.  Dear me is that classified as a “misdirection”, an “overreach” or a “lie”, Mr Abbott?

Besides, Abbott hosting his celebration of International Women’s Day there is perfectly appropriate for him. It makes perfect sense and I understand the congruence inherent in this decision by the Minister for Women.  It is totally in line with all his previous decisions in regards his portfolio.  Makes perfect sense to me!  Allow me to elucidate a little.

Carbon Tax and Refuges

Women killed by mid 2015 V people by Terrorists
Women killed by mid 2015 V people by Terrorists

So … not at a refuge.  So many frontline support services are feeling the pinch since Abbott stepped up to the plate to bat for the Women of the country. Seems to me he has done quite a bit lately. Before hosting his celebration of International Women’s Day at his “old boys” club his claim to support was putting money into housewives pockets by removing the Carbon Tax. Mr Abbott has been very active in his role as The Minister for Women. OK, perhaps not in regards issues about violent deaths incurred by women via partners or ex-partners.  There were 89 women were killed by their current or former partner between 2008-10 reaching  84 deaths of women last year 2014 (although we look set to exceed that this year) and thousands of domestic violence cases. (In Victoria alone, police were called out to 65,393 domestic violence incidents in 2013–14 – 30,000 of which were serious enough for police to press charges.) To date we are only six months into the year and have a scored past half of last year’s total of 48 violent deaths, maintaining a close to 2 women/week average. (There is something appallingly sterile about expressing it that way.) But what deaths does he concentrate on … External terrorism (which has killed exactly how any people in Australia this century? – let alone the last year). And where is he spending millions in fighting which deaths?  What if he spent the same relative money per real death on domestic violence terrorism that he does on practically non-existent external born terrorism deaths?   Then he’s truly have reason to whine about a Deficit!  (see my post on the Budget for that particular fraud)

Control Issues

In truth his position allows him significant control over women’s issues. It allows the inequality of pay and position to remain the status quo (actually latest figures show the gulf has widened), allows him to shutdown women’s shelters, revoke funding for Women’s Leadership programs and the Financial Counselling/National Shelter programs all which provide direct support for women & children. Shutting down funding for the 13 community legal services in Victoria which provides for the same.  It ensures the “Women’s Budget Statement” which has been a part of the federal budget papers for 30 years, ceased to exist in 2014 onwards. Let’s not forget how he castigates women verbally as exemplified by repeated gaffes that cast women in the kitchen and relegate their only conceivable role to that of unpaid housework.  Lately, mother’s are “dirty leaning double-dipping rorters of the system” just because these scheming women want to spend the first 6 months of their child’s life, with them rather then getting back to work the moment they leave hospital and are no longer entitled to sick leave.  Adding to that list his role allows him to ignore the issue of domestic violence, amongst other crimes. Like I said, very active.

His greatest Achievement for women?

Abbot treats all women equally
Abbot treats all women equally

Delegating his greatest achievement as Minister for Women to throwing out climate legislation ignores many women who thought dealing with climate actually mattered. The third most significant issue to women behind Immigration and “Defence & Security” according to JWS Research. And the majority of women rate him poorly in all these issues. “The perception is it’s essentially a male government focusing on male issues,” said John Scales, JWS Research managing director. Given his many instances of misogyny from physically attacking women in his student days, his anti-abortion activism, his professed disapproval of no-fault divorce, contraception and pre-marital sex, his many misogynistic attacks on Julia Gillard while in opposition, to the unparalleled verbal attack on Gillian Triggs (where was the “partisan” criticism for Phillip Moss – a man – for revealing similar or worse abuses than Triggs revealed, in his report on Naru), I’d dare to suggest another motivation for this role.  He’s a sociopath which is something many have begun to recognise or acknowledge. (Yes I have a post on that too)

“FOR” or …

The choice of taking on the position of “Minister for Women” ought to be more properly seen as a huge #¥€< you to women in general.  So don’t expect any real improvements for Women at all under Abbott!

Like I said he’s been working very hard, it’s just that title that confuses me, because I would have thought that middle word was spelt “f” “i” “x”, not “f” “o” “r”?
<sigh>

Afterthought down the track

Still a Minister who thinks we need to "fix" women!
Still a Minister who thinks we need to “fix” women!

It’s three months down the track since I wrote what’s above (now September 2015).  The Death rate is 65 Women and Abbott is gone. Malcolm Turnbull has clawed back only a small proportion of the funding for Domestic Violence that Abbott stole but it is merely a bandage on a gaping wound. Changing the Minister for Women to a woman who has clearly stated she doesn’t believe in feminism is not going to help. The problem with both Abbott and Cash is that they both think the middle part of their title is “fix” not “for”.  Abbott stole $300M from DV social support funding. Just for they whom believe Malcolm putting a third of that back is an improvement, let’s think about that a bit. So the government is going to put money back into domestic violence but not to the extent to that which they took out. People get excited about the government and say “isn’t this a great start“. And “heading in the right direction“. Nobody of course pays attention to the net loss figure as there is just a presumption that it is moved away from the point that Abbott left it in. It is essentially the strategy of many a politician to appear to act in the interests of the people as the election draws near. Let’s face it who remembers – in the short news cycle of contemporary society – what the net change in funding and societal harm has been created. People react positively to the perception that things are changing in a direction that benefits society without recognising that the total net movement has been to its detriment. A wave of positivity and a lack of critical analysis results, and the results are the government gets in for another three year term where they rework the same cycle that they have been successful with in the past.  An improvement would be $400M!  This is just political misdirection! Hopefully your not buying into it.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he’s done it but … too late and not enough!  The title is:  “Minister FOR women”!

 

Filed Under: Women

Primary Sidebar

Search for what you seek:

Recent backchat

  • Pass the Baton - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on A Climate of Opinion.
  • Casting Light on Marriage - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Coming Out
  • Coming Out - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Marriage by Definition
  • Coming Out - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Dear Eric
  • Coming Out - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Casting Light on Marriage

Archives

  • December 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • March 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • January 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • November 2014

Categories

  • Awards
  • Budget
  • Climate Change
  • Corruption
  • Employment
  • Environment
  • Foreign
  • Health
  • Indigenous
  • Partisan
  • Politicians
  • Privatisation
  • Race
  • Refugees
  • Religous
  • Satire
  • Sexuality
  • Taxes
  • Voting
  • Women
  • writing

Copyright © 2023 · Auswakeup Media · Log in

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.