- by Graham Holton
- The Guardian
- Issue #2202
Graphic: freesvg.org
The Australian government has argued that the 2026 - 27 budget used gender analysis to improve women’s economic security. These include tax cuts, child support reforms, paid parental leave measures, women’s health initiatives, and policies intended to increase workforce participation. The government claimed that millions of women will benefit from these measures.
Many economists, unions, and women’s advocacy groups argue otherwise. There is substantial evidence that the Federal budget is adversely affecting women. Insufficient spending on childcare, aged care, health care, disability support, and social housing will disproportionately affect them.
The Labor government’s 2026 - 27 Women’s Budget Statement notes that women perform most informal care for children, older Australians and people with disabilities, making them particularly vulnerable when support services are reduced. Nearly 91 per cent of early childhood education and care workers are women.
Many Australian welfare, disability and gender-equality organisations contend that women will bear a larger share of the budget’s social and economic consequences. Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA) has strongly criticised the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) savings. Executive Director Carolyn Frohmader, and policy advocates within the organisation, argue that cuts to social and community participation supports would harm women and girls with disabilities by increasing isolation and exposure to abuse and violence.
WWDA said: “Women and girls with disability will be hit hardest.” Women with disabilities are already experiencing poverty and social exclusion, and further reductions could worsen those conditions.
Women are more likely to work part-time, take career breaks for caring responsibilities, rely on social services, and retire with less superannuation. Recent research from the Monash Centre for Financial Studies found that women approaching retirement generally have superannuation balances 20 - 30 per cent less than men. Analysts warn that spending ‘restraint’ affecting pensions or support programs could intensify financial insecurity among older women.
Women’s organisations and gender policy analysts argue that government spending on gender equality and violence prevention remains relatively small and that insufficient investment delays achieving equality. Trade unions representing care-sector workers argued that historically female-dominated occupations remain undervalued and have sought substantial wage increases to address gender-based inequities.
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) argued that budget savings achieved through tax cuts and constrained welfare spending will increase gender inequality because women constitute a majority of income-support recipients.
ACOSS has called for stronger investment in ‘affordable’ housing, income support and care services. The Communist Party of Australia’s policy calls for massive investment in public housing.
The Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) has emphasised that women continue to perform a disproportionate share of unpaid work. This limits participation in full-time employment and contributes to lower lifetime earnings and retirement savings.
Older women are one of the fastest-growing groups at risk of homelessness. Years spent in unpaid caring work, part-time employment, divorce, widowhood and lower superannuation contribute to financial insecurity in retirement. Community organisations estimate that more than one-third of single women over 60 live in income poverty.
According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, women face particular disadvantages due to lower lifetime earnings, unequal caring responsibilities, and greater exposure to violence and housing insecurity.
Critics of the budget argue that women are concentrated in sectors dependent on government funding. Single mothers and older women are at greater risk of poverty. Women with disabilities face heightened risks from reductions in social supports. Existing gender gaps in pay and superannuation make women less able to absorb reductions in services and benefits.
While tax cuts that help women are welcome, ‘restraint’ and ‘responsible’ decisions that disproportionately affect women are not. A government that makes $386 billion (at a minimum) available for the AUKUS program is not a government that makes Australian women a priority.
