INTRODUCTION  

It  has  been  the  practice  since  1984 for  Federal  Governments  to  produce  a  Women’s  Budget   Statement  as  one  element  of  the  official  Budget  Papers.  In  2014  this  practice ceased.  There  has  been   no  explanation  from  the  Government.  It  is  regrettable  that  the  Government  has  made  this  decision.

In  2014  the  National  Foundation  for  Australian  Women,  a  non-­‐politically  aligned  feminist   organisation,  in conjunction  with  experts  from  a  range  of  women’s  organisations,  took up  the  task  of   analysing  the  implications  of  the  Budget  through  a  gender  lens Budget 2014 Gender Lens.  That  document  proved  useful   to  a  number  of  organisations  and  analysts,  and  so  this  year,  in  the  continuing  absence  of  a   Government  Women’s  Budget  Statement,  we  have  prepared  a  Gender  Lens  for  the  2015-­‐16  Budget.

Why  a  Gender  Lens?

NFAW,  with  other  women’s  organisations,  is  committed  to  examining  the  potentially  differential   impacts  of  policies  and  their  outcomes  for  men  and  for  women,  and  whether  the  consequences  of   policies,  intended  or  unintended,  may  adversely  impact  on  women.

The  gap  between the  earnings  of  men  and  women  is  18.8  per  cent  and  is  continuing  to  widen.   Women  take  time  out  of  the  work  force  for  child  bearing,  child  rearing,  and  for  care  responsibilities   for  extended  family  members  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  do  men.  As  a  consequence,  women   have  lower  rates  of  savings  for  retirement,  and  most women  will  eventually  become  wholly  or   partially  dependant  on  the  Age  Pension.  Women  are  also  underrepresented  in  the  well-­‐paying   occupations  and  over  represented  in  the  feminised  industries  that  are  low  paid.  Their  career   progression  and  therefore  representation  in  the  senior  executive  levels  is  often  interrupted  by  the   periods  of  unpaid  care  work  and  consequently  women  continue  to  be  underrepresented  on  boards   and  other  senior  positions  in  the  workforce.  Many  older  women  have  not  had  an  extensive  history of   work-­‐force  attachment,  and  are  unlikely  to  be  good  prospects  for  working  until  age  70.  Housing   security  is  markedly  worse  for  mature  women  than  for  men.  Women  have  different  experiences  of   poor  health  conditions  than  men. Women  in  Australia  are  much more  likely  than  men  to  experience   violence  at  the  hands  of  a  partner.

Gender  analysis  is  essential.

This  document  has  been  prepared  by  a  volunteer  team  of  analysts.  It  has  been  not  possible  to  cover   all areas  extensively including  women  with  disability  and  CALD  women.  Most  particularly  we  regret   our  inability  to  analyse  the  implications  for  indigenous  women  and  children  specifically,  given  the   merging  of  many  pre-­‐existing  programs  into  new  groups  in  the  Department  of  Prime  Minister  and   Cabinet.  However,  we  can  legitimately  assume  that  any  measure  adversely  affecting the  income,   housing,  health  care  access  or  education  of  low  income  families  will  be  much  worse  for  indigenous   women  and  children.

READ FULL PAPER