On Tuesday, March 25th, the Australian Labor Party hnded down the country’s federal budget for the 2025-26 financial year. Men’s health was not part of the budget. However, women’s health received its usual smorgasbord of government goodies, with Treasurer Jim Chalmers stating that women's health is a “national priority."
According to government documents and Nine News, $793 million has been budgeted for women’s health. This money has been labelled “critical” and entails the following, according to Nine News:
$134.3 million for insertion and removal of long-acting reversible contraceptives by nurse practitioners
$109.1 million to fund two national trials related women’s access to contraceptives and treatment for urinary tract infections
$20.9 million to create 11 new clinics for treating endometriosis, pelvic pain, perimenopause, and menopause
$26.3 million for Medicare rebates for menopause health assessments
$277.7 million for 500 new community sector and frontline worker jobs in domestic violence
$70 million for existing services and for trialling new measures to support women and children experiencing violence
$21.4 million to improve victim and survivor engagement within the justice system
$21.8 million for First Nations women, children and communities for family, domestic and sexual violence services
$16.7 million to fund innovative approaches to address perpetrator behaviour
$606.3 million to deliver more doctors and nurses
$28 million to support the construction of the Nursing and Midwifery Academy in Victoria
$10.5 million to expand the Primary Care Nursing and Midwifery Scholarship program
$1.3 million to extend the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Education and Training Program by 12 months
$3.4 million for mentoring and coaching programs for First Nations women in business
$3.2 million to the Australian Sports Commission to help increase women and girls' participation in sports leadership through coaching, officiating and sports administration
One might notice that these figures add up to significantly more than $793 million. This occurred, because, in an effort to show the Labor Party’s affection for its female voting bloc, Nine News revealed aspects of the federal budget that most people would consider beneficial for female wellbeing, but were not categorized by the government as “women’s health” funds. Information about these additional investments can be found in the government’s 64-page budget overview titled, “Building Australia’s Future,” and in the government’s 80-page “Women’s Budget Statement.”
In the budget overview, the $793 million for women’s health is mentioned under “Strengthening Medicare” and “Better healthcare for women.” This is the part of the budget that includes funds allocated for contraceptive pills, menopause treatments, and the 11 clinics for treating endometriosis, pelvic pain, perimenopause, and menopause.
Further down the budget overview, one finds a section titled “Progressing equality, supporting women.” This section describes some of the other goodies for women that were mentioned or alluded to in the Nine News report, including:
$2.6 billion for a further pay rise for aged care nurses
$3.9 billion to enhance access to legal services, including for people experiencing gender-based violence
$21.4 million to improve engagement with the justice system of victims of gender-based violence
$21.8 million to provide family, domestic and sexual violence services to First Nations women, children and communities
However, for the most complete understanding of the federal budget’s allocation of funds for improving the lives of women, but not men, one needs to consult with the 80-page Women’s Budget Statement.
This Statement is divided into five themes:
Gender-based violence
Unpaid and paid care
Economic equality and security
Health (i.e., the “women’s health” section)
Leadership, representation and decision
Each major theme is made of various subthemes that serve as targets of the new budget. These subthemes include but are not limited to:
Ending gender-based violence
Ensuring safe education and workplaces for women
Providing cost-of-living relief to women and families
Increasing women’s workforce participation
Narrowing the gender pay gap
Enhancing long-term economic equality and security for women
Women in leadership and decision-making
Women’s and girl’s representation and participation in sport
Building gender equality capability across government
Global leadership on gender equality
Many of the details of these subthemes were not described in the Nine News report or the budget overview, and they reveal the extent to which the budget has been underpinned by feminist ideology and a bias against men.
On page 11, under the theme of “gender-based violence,” one learns that some portion of $534.5 million will go toward “break[ing] the cycle of violence and prevent[ing] further harm by developing national standards for men’s behaviour change…” [italics added]
Neither the budget nor the Women’s Budget Statement mentioned funds for developing national standards for women’s behaviour change.
On page 18, one learns of $925.2 million for the “Leaving Violence Program,” and on page 24 one learns of the development of the National Student Ombudsman whose function will be to allow university students to “escalate complaints about the actions of their higher education provider, including complaints about sexual harassment, assault and violence.” Regarding the Leaving Violence Program, the Women’s Budget Statement states that its purpose is to “empower people to leave violent relationships through financial support packages.” The program will provide financial support packages of up to $5,000 and be open to migrants regardless of visa status. The program is expected to support approximately 36,000 people each year.
Neither the budget nor the Women’s Budget Statement mentioned the possibility that the Leaving Violence Program might incentive false allegations of intimate partner violence (likely against men). The extent to which the National Student Ombudsman might also increase false allegations, specifically of sexual violence among university students, is something else to keep an eye on in the coming months.
On page 37, one learns of the budget goal of “building a stronger workforce pipeline” for unpaid and paid care work. Here, the Labor government seeks to pour money into the care sector to make care work “more attractive by supporting fair numeration.” They also state that they want to increase men’s participation in the care sector by “break[ing] down stereotypes that care is ‘women’s work.’”
Yet, the Labor government reinforces this stereotype when it admits that the reason that it will provide the Commonwealth Prac Payment of $331 per week for education, social work, nursing, and midwifery students while they undertake their practicums is because most of those students are women. The Women’s Budget Statement states: “Many of these students will likely be women. In 2022, women made up 81 per cent of enrolments in teaching, nursing, midwifery, and social work higher education courses, and 84 per cent of 2022 commencements in the Diploma of Nursing.” The Statement continues: “Given women represent almost 90 per cent of the nursing and midwifery sector professions, women stand to benefit the most from this measure.”
Thus, by examining the Women’s Budget Statement, one see that reports of $793 million for women’s health are somewhat misleading. Many of the items in the Women’s Budget Statement that were not designated as “women’s health” will undoubtedly still improve the quality of life for many women. Where to the draw the line on what is “health” funding versus other funding is a matter of debate, but that such a debate is possible is something to be aware of when reading government reports, press releases, and data tables, even from men’s health groups or researchers. For example, in my previous examinations of sex differences in funding, I have explored only the narrow topic of investment into men’s and women’s health research (see graph below).
Similarly, in their response to the federal budget, the Australian Men’s Health Forum published a table (shown below) that lists annual budgeting for men’s and women’s health since 2022-23. The table clearly shows a consistent bias in investing millions more dollars into women’s than men’s health. Over the four-year period, the Australian government invested $1.3 billion into women’s health and $22.5 million into men’s health. Yet, in the table, the value listed for women’s health in 2025-26 is $793 million. Thus, as lopsided as the numbers in the table are, they do not reflect the full extent of bias in funding, as they do not account for all the other women’s programs that have been funded over the years and are more indirectly linked to health.
Interestingly, had the Labor government wanted to talk about token funding for male wellbeing, they could have. For example, the budget includes $47.6 million for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, with suggestions that the money be used for veteran suicide prevention and veteran compensation and rehabilitation claims. Men make up 79.4% of current members of the Australian Defence Forces and 86.6% of individuals who have previously served in the Australian Defence Forces. Thus, men stand to benefit the most from this budget item.
The budget also includes $9.3 billion for homelessness. Men make up a 56% of the homeless population in Australia. Thus, many men also stand to benefit from this budget item.
Why the Labor government chose not to frame such budget items in a male-supportive way is unclear. Doing so would have required explicit acknowledgment of male suffering and disadvantage, and this would be at odds with many other aspects of their feminist-influenced budget. That the budget was influenced by feminist ideology is evident from the following observations:
First, the budget was not simply disproportionate in its funding; it listed zero explicit concern over the wellbeing of boys and men. Thus, it explicitly allocated zero dollars toward male health and wellbeing. One should not have to search the fine print of budget items to identify a morsel of interest in male wellbeing. Those items should be bundled together and presented explicitly, just as they were for women.
Second, the budget for women’s health is largely based on the idea that women experience more chronic health conditions than men, but it fails to mention that the average Australian male dies four years earlier than the average Australian female. The budget seems to fail to consider that some men might prefer to live long enough to experience some chronic health conditions.
Third, the government budgeted for menopause but it did not budget for andropause, male hypogonadism, or low testosterone.
Fourth, the government budgeted for new centres to service women’s pelvic health. These new centres are in addition to the centres that currently exist for this purpose and the broader array of women’s health centres that exist throughout Australia. Why does the government not have an interest in men’s health centres?
Fifth, the funding for “gender-based violence” and legal counselling associated with such violence all appear to be directed toward helping women, but many Australian men are also victims of intimate partner violence, and one out of every four victims of intimate partner homicide in Australia is a male.
Sixth, the government budgeted for programs for developing “national standards for men’s behaviour change.” The government did not budget for programs aimed at developing national standards for girls’ and women’s behaviour change.
In conclusion, the federal budget handed down by the Australian Labor government reveals that the party has little interest in improving male health and wellbeing. The very existence of the Women’s Budget Statement absent an equivalent Men’s Budget Statement is all the evidence one needs to know that this administration is heavily influenced by feminist ideology and lacks empathy and compassion for one half of the Australian population. Moreover, given that the summary of the budget was titled, “Building Australia’s Future,” the current government seems to subscribe to the view that “the future is female” and that boys and men are not an important part of Australia’s future – except, of course, when they can be useful allies for the feminist cause. How sad.
For their sex-biased budget, the Labor government ought to be publicly ridiculed. Irrespective of how one crunches the numbers, funding for women’s health in Australia has far exceeded funding for men’s health for many years. Furthermore, given this disproportionate funding over the course of many years, government officials should be asked how prior funding has apparently been so ineffective at resolving women’s issues, given that each new budget seems to include both new and old female problems? For example, how could billions of dollars have been invested into women’s health over the past several years without anyone already addressing endometriosis or menopause? Importantly, this critique is not specific to women’s health. Instead, it is a critique of the widespread belief that increased government spending is the solution to all of society’s health problems.
There is no good reason why the Labor government cannot simultaneously recognize the health statuses and needs of both sexes and produce separate Women’s and Men’s Budget Statements. In fact, one policy solution might be to mandategovernments to create both Women’s and Men’s Budget Statements.
Labor’s feminist-minded budget is intended, in part, to appease their disproportionate female voting bloc, to virtue signal, and to allow the party to be viewed as progressive, empathetic, and morally superior. However, ignoring one half of the Australian population is quite the opposite of being caring, ethical, and advanced in one’s thinking.
On May 3rd, Australian voters ought to hold the Labor Party accountable for its dismissal of our brothers, sons, fathers, grandfathers, and uncles. This dismissal was not accidental. It was part and parcel of the broader intersectional and collectivist worldview of the Labor Party.
On May 3rd, Australians ought to vote for national representatives who care for all Australians equally.
Related Content at The Nuzzo Letter
SUPPORT THE NUZZO LETTER
If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you.
If you prefer to donate to a specific project, please see the Go Fund Me page for my current research on sex differences in muscle strength in children.
Share this post