It seems a bit disparate. I would like to have seen something more holistic.
I want to get back to some of the things we heard from the economist. Professor Kathleen Lahey noted the term “proportionately larger reductions” in her critique of the Department of Finance gender analysis of tax measures in Budget 2007. It's used frequently in the GBA. But the concern is that this concept hides the fact that tax benefits in real dollars amount to substantially less for women than for men when you start to talk about real dollars. When it gets to trying to manage and be economically viable, it's the real dollars that count.
Could you explain why the term was used and the rationale for it?