At least 33 women won't live to receive budget's DV funds

Based on the budget, I'd argue the answer is no. So let me address this to the elected members of the government, especially those of you who see yourselves as centre-left.

Do you know who put you there? Do you know who voted for you in droves because the Coalition was more than a thinking woman could bear (even those who wanted to vote centre-right)?

Yep. Chicks. Chickadees. Sheilas. Women. Not that ANU's Ian McAllister, distinguished professor of political science, would use that kind of informal language. But yeah, women are voting centre-left and centre-right as a result of all those things like university education, employment, childcare. And women are more likely to prioritise health, education, childcare, social welfare in general. We don't agonise about defence, taxation and migration policy.

He would never be so chill in his description - but I'd summarise his views as: women are aligned with the needs of humanity.

Political parties aren't really good at doing that. Nor are some political parties much good at female representation and it turns out, says McAllister, women voters like to vote for women.

So in the aftermath of the budget, dear leaders, those people, those women voters, think you no longer have their best interests at heart. Those women, the ones in the centre, the ones who gave you to the keys to the kingdom, think you've forgotten all your promises.

In that thankfully brief period of time this year when women were dying at the rate of two every nine days, that mercifully brief period of time when politicians were engaging with the horrors of violence against women, the government said it would act.

That is not what it has done. No one in their right mind thinks the $1 billion for the Leaving Violence program is enough to stop violence - the funding of $5000 may be be available to all so long as they live until July 2025. At least 33 women won't live that long.

Yes there will be more money for crisis housing for those trying to escape domestic violence but again, that's long-term. Way past the next election. Way past the life expectancy of women who live with violent partners. Way way past the amount of time children should see or hear violence.

Here's what renowned troublemakers MinterEllison did. The law firm published a new report, led by Amanda Watt. It called for mandatory discrete budget lines to enable consistent tracking of domestic, family and sexual violence financing at both Commonwealth, state and territory government levels. To have framework so we can keep track of what money is being spent where and whether it works or not.

This is not rocket science.

Let me give you some other disappointments. Why - on earth - would a Labor government hand out stage three tax cuts to those who will barely notice the increase while at the same time refusing to raise the rate on welfare payments? This makes no sense. Those champions at the Australian Council of Social Service campaigned ferociously on this. Open letters with hundreds of signatories that begin with predictions of an increase in unemployment. That prediction started to become true just eight weeks later.

And what did those on welfare get? To Katy Gallagher's credit, she was honest enough at an event in Parliament House on Wednesday where she described most of the changes as small but useful. I love her accountability.

Australia's new Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody is cautiously hopeful about the federal government's approach. Yes, there was good support for the wages of those who work in early education - and there was a gender budgeting approach.

"But they really need to raise JobSeeker and Youth Allowance," she says.

Women on those benefits are deep in poverty, often supporting children, sometimes experiencing domestic and family violence. Raising the rate would help women get out.

READ MORE JENNA PRICE:

But Cody, who has worked in access to justice for over 20 years, can also see another urgent aspect - funding those who work in areas which help and support women trying to escape violence: community legal centres, homelessness services, refuges, women's legal services. And she stresses the urgent need to fund violence prevention and legal services for First Nations women, the kind of services which are co-designed to give the best possible outcomes for a community which experiences disproportionately high rates of violence against women. Those services help women and are staffed by women.

She says we must keep the pressure on until the next budget and beyond.

So here are some other things on the list. What about women and education? Nice job tinkering with the structural inequality of HECS - but again the $1200 deduction from the HECS debt really won't help women in the long-term. Women are more likely to have done the degrees which prepare them for working the lower paid caring industries, says UNE's senior lecturer Marg Rogers. When HECS was introduced, in 1989, the role of women was still pretty much old-school. Now women are at university in higher numbers to men, and also in the workplace and owe something like 58 per cent of the HECS debt, says Rogers.

Then they take time off and work part-time and pay off their debt more slowly and so the debt compounds. Then it can be tough to get a loan because of their student debt or even have enough to rent because they are paying off their loan.

Yes, it is true rental assistance is excellent and will definitely help women. And then there's the 300 bucks over the year to go towards energy payments. But what women need is actually this: a substantial increase in welfare payments. A substantial increase in funding for services which will keep them safe. A real fix for HECS.

Honestly, it's exhausting. Sometimes I think governments are waiting until we all die of rage. Or old age.