It was a rather unedifying week for Australian politics last week, and not just because many important news items were overshadowed by the salacious sight of escaped baboons en route to a vasectomy, and New Zealand yoga mats.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In fact, it was a particularly awful week in terms of how our country treats women in crisis.
There was the long tail of shock and horror as the public absorbed more horrific details of the murder of Brisbane mother Hannah Clarke and her three children at the hands of her ex-husband.
And there was the sobering - but not altogether surprising - news that the federal government has taken $5 billion off single mothers over the last 13 years, in the name of making savings from welfare payments.
Sally Whyte's report that legislation forcing single parents from the parenting payment onto Newstart has saved the budget $5 billion over the last 13 years is yet another example of this government's stance on welfare - that is that is should be discouraged at all costs.
Never mind the fact that this "saving" - for what, exactly? - has forced already poor families into poverty.
It's clear that it's time, again, for some serious soul-searching in Australia when it comes to how vulnerable women are treated in our society.
Analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office of laws passed under John Howard and Julia Gillard indicated a "positive budget impact" - a saving of $5.089 billion, worth hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Positive is, of course, a relative term. In 2005 the Howard government introduced legislation changing the eligibility for the single parent payment from when the youngest child turned 16, to when they turned eight.
After that, single parents, predominantly women, were moved to the lower Newstart payment.
The chief executive of the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, Terese Edwards, said the changes had made the poorest families poorer.
READ MORE:
"There was no modelling done regarding the impact, it was all based on belief, ideology and budget savings," she said.
"It just threw women into turmoil, things that were standard - heating in the cold, cooling in the heat, having enough food - basic household utilities became a cost-saving measure for women. It's a nonsensical horror policy that should be fixed."
This is especially the case when it's clear that those "savings" don't appear to have been channelled into anything that might otherwise benefit women, things such as extra support for women fleeing domestic violence.
Among the heartbreaking details of Hannah Clarke's murder was the fact that her situation was already known to police, that she had sought help and still had not been able to keep herself and her young children safe from violence.
Columnist Jenna Price put it best, and bluntly, in a piece last week:
"It's ridiculous to say that violence against women is never OK. Of course it's OK in this country. If it wasn't OK, Australian governments would do something about it. They aren't," she wrote.
"Again, a man murders his wife and children. The murder of a woman by a man happens about once a week in Australia. That number is not changing."
It's clear that it's time, again, for some serious soul-searching in Australia when it comes to how vulnerable women are treated in our society.
And it should be front and centre of our public discourse, even in times when levity and lighthearted news seems preferable.
