Australia’s COVID recession hurt women more than men, and not only in job numbers.
With schools and childcare centres closed, many women who remained in paid work had no choice but to take on more unpaid work, effectively working double shifts.
Yet much of the government’s budget response involved high-viz vests and hard hats.
These gender differences would have been apparent to the government if it had run its policy ideas through a “gender lens” – a process that used to be built into the government’s budget decision-making.
Promises of A$1.7 billion in childcare relief in Tuesday’s budget aim to lift women’s workforce involvement, but bigger steps beyond the perfunctory Women’s Economic Security Statement are needed to bring a gender lens to policy design.
- ^ used to be (theconversation.com)
- ^ Women’s Economic Security Statement (pmc.gov.au)
- ^ working from home (www.abs.gov.au)
- ^ Women's Economic Security Statement 2020-21 Not a holistic analysis of government programs (pmc.gov.au)
- ^ research on unconscious bias (hbr.org)
- ^ Each budget used to have a gender impact statement. We need it back, especially now (theconversation.com)
- ^ working fathers (melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au)
- ^ zoom-bombing (www.youtube.com)
- ^ Lyn Mills/NPC (iview.abc.net.au)
- ^ Scott Morrison (ministers.treasury.gov.au)
- ^ just like men (parlinfo.aph.gov.au)
- ^ three (theconversation.com)
- ^ 1.6% (nfaw.org)
- ^ emotional abuse (theconversation.com)
- ^ A shocking finding that will change the way you think about gender pay (theconversation.com)
- ^ empower men (media-cdn.ourwatch.org.au)
Authors: Leonora Risse, Lecturer in Economics, RMIT University