Women

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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?