Thanks to Professor Helen Hughes for sending me this information.
‘TITLE: Government extends funding for Women’s AlliancesThe Hon Julie Collins MP PORTFOLIO: Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs LinkThe six National Women’s Alliances will receive $4.8 million in Australian Government funding to continue bringing forward women’s views, voices and issues onto the national policy agenda. The Minister for the Status of Women, Julie Collins, said the three-year funding extension until 2016 will ensure the Alliances can continue to advise the Government on priority women’s issues. The establishment of the National Women’s Alliances in 2010 was a new way for the Government to engage with the women of Australia, Ms Collins said.’
If you want to feel really depressed, click on the link and find out about these women’s alliances, no doubt staffed by Labor mates.
Evidently, these alliances need this sort of funding to talk to the government on women’s issues.
It seems rather dubious that the government would make this commitment for three years when the PM has announced an election date.
Just more wasteful, disgraceful spending by this government.
The URL is subject of a Log On drop down screen
Mike of Marion
14 Feb 13 at 1:44 pm
Judith’s link here.
C.L.
14 Feb 13 at 1:47 pm
The whole department for the Status of Women should be abolished. Tokenism at it’s worst. Just waste that needs to be slashed.
Andrew
14 Feb 13 at 1:51 pm
$4.8million? Pfft. Chickenfeed. Carr’s given $15million to rebuild 40kms of road in Kiribati.
Gab
14 Feb 13 at 1:52 pm
The idea is to lock in funding so that they can carry on the good work during the wilderness years while the Coalition is in power.
If they really work at it, they may be able to get to the position in the USA, where “entitlements” are “mandatory spending”, while defence is “discretionary spending”.
Cato the Elder
14 Feb 13 at 1:54 pm
It’s all about the numbers. Strange how the entitlement to free contraception is apparently more important than ensuring that service personnel are adequately paid and properly equipped. I guess that there are more moochers than service personnel.
Cato the Elder
14 Feb 13 at 1:59 pm
Women’s alliances? Isn’t the proper Bolshi word Collective?
Splatacrobat
14 Feb 13 at 2:00 pm
Women’s alliances? Isn’t the proper Bolshi word Wymminses?
Rabz
14 Feb 13 at 2:03 pm
Oh God!
face ache
14 Feb 13 at 2:08 pm
Considering that $4.8 mill will have to last them at least 20 years, I think they have shown admirable restraint.
Steve of Ferny Hills
14 Feb 13 at 2:18 pm
Abbott will have to ensure that much of this funding is redirected to things that may actually matter to women and most of these are in the bio-medical arena: maternal and child health, menopause clinics (a big demographic on the way), sexual health, physical exercise opportunities, weight management, informal and other childcare, plus workforce re-skilling after periods away having and caring for children.
Some partitioning of the funds for ‘men’s issues’ would also be fair.
Forget the rest. Much is covered already by existing laws (e.g. domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harassment) and needs no further interventions (probably a few definitions could usefully be scaled back). Women are doing well in education arenas and pay equity is a furphy when it is realistically examined.
Money could usefully go to helping to keep marriages together via counselling and via improvements in the legal system that currently fails to protect marriage and marital and parental relationships.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
14 Feb 13 at 2:19 pm
You’re right Lizzie.
I work in the health industry and seeing this makes me see red.
Locally, one in twenty women are waiting over a YEAR in the public hospital system for their hysterectomy.
dan
14 Feb 13 at 2:34 pm
The consultants report great value for that $4.8 million…..
“The Alliances have developed specialised skills in lobbying government. They have shown an ability to influence government across their identified policy areas.”
Cash for Comment – with taxpayer’s cash.
MiltonG
14 Feb 13 at 2:52 pm
“The Alliance represents 180 women’s organizations…”
180! No wonder we can’t get any peace and quiet.
Paul
14 Feb 13 at 3:54 pm
“The Alliance represents 180 women’s organizations…” wonder how many males are employed by those organizations? Or are these organisations exempted from the gender gap issue?
Gab
14 Feb 13 at 3:58 pm
Isn’t the role of the Office for Women to advise the minister? Then there is the Gender Equality Agency.
Samuel J
14 Feb 13 at 5:03 pm
I sat on a high level Treasury consultation with one of these broads from Equality Rights Alliance recently. She just sat there the entire meeting and looked bored, and it’s not as though she wasn’t very senior as well.
New Gold Dream
14 Feb 13 at 7:19 pm
If I start the National Men’s Alliances will I be called a sexist or a misogynist and will I get $4.8 million.
Seems to me that all these so called ‘women’s rights/advisory organisations” would only suggest that women can’t thing for themselves. My wife seems to be doing quite well thank you without some do-gooder pulling her strings. As a matter of fact, she thinks Emily’s list is a disgrace.
PA of SEQ
15 Feb 13 at 9:42 am
Idiotic male that I am, I can’t help but wonder the need for six different National Women’s Alliances?
Supplice
15 Feb 13 at 10:13 am