Kate Chaney
Curtin · Independent · Australia
“Digital platforms will have a legal responsibility to prevent harm, but the design of this commitment matters enormously, and I want to flag three things that the government must get right. First, there must be a single overarching duty.”
“The government gave stakeholders representing millions of Australians affected by gambling harm a single 45-minute consultation session on the exposure draft, with written submissions due the next day. Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, who took part in that session, described it afterwards as a charade.”
“A doctor who uses the phone, internet, fax, email or video conferencing to provide lawful VAD care risks prosecution and fines greater than $300,000. This means seriously ill patients must attend every consultation in person, travelling long distances while gravely unwell, often more than once, to make and confirm their request.”
“I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,000 Australians. The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code Act so that it no longer applies to voluntary assisted dying, VAD.”
“She lived in one half of a single house divided into two separate dwellings. She got on well with the quiet single working man next door. This particular morning she was devastated and in shock. The man had hung himself in the shed where she found him, and left a note listing all the people he owed money to including the amounts.”
“No avenue to call up customer service at these companies and request this person be denied an account. Our nightmare never ends. There's nowhere to help us. The only option presented seems to dissolve the marriage and the family.”
The complete record
Every one of 846 lines we hold for Kate Chaney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 17.
“That's why I bring forward this matter of public importance—to maintain momentum for real, structural tax reform in the coming years. Keeping a lid on spending must, of course, be part of budget repair, as must productivity, but these are not the only levers. We also need to shift the burden to different taxes that demonstrate the principles of intergenerational equity, business investment and simplification. As we build public appetite for reform, we need to avoid being sucked into the rule in, rule out game that characterises so much of our politics. Every option should be on the table. While an individual measure may have a negative impact on a particular cohort, other measures within a broader package may make that same cohort better off, so we must consider tax reform packages as a whole.”
“After the economic roundtable two weeks ago, the Treasurer committed to developing a process for longer term tax reform focused on a fair go for working people, including, in intergenerational equity terms, an affordable, responsible way to incentivise business investment and making the system simpler and more sustainable. I welcome this commitment and regard it as a real win for the crossbench. Throughout the last term, I and other Independents consistently called for both long-term tax reform and a focus on intergenerational fairness. In fact, we were the only ones calling for tax reform. These issues were too often ignored by the major parties. The challenge now is to maintain pressure on the government to follow through—and on the coalition to bring its own solutions—on intergenerational equity and tax reform.”
“Parliament works best when we take the time to scrutinise legislation carefully, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. Yesterday I moved a motion to refer this bill to committee, given that it deals with significant individual rights, and I stand by that as the best course of action. I understand the government's desire to deal quickly with the NZYQ cohort. Community safety is paramount, but, as legislators, we have a duty to make good law not just fast law. We need to balance security with fairness and efficiency with accountability. In the absence of a committee reviewing the bill to examine with adequate time whether we have that balance right, I will not be supporting this bill.”
“The government is clearly desperate to deal with the NZYQ cohort, and this is reflected in the eye-watering sums of money that the government is reportedly paying Nauru to accept these people. After the TCXM case, procedural fairness has already been found, at least in the first-instance decision, not to apply to the exercise of executive power needed to remove the problem of this cohort to Nauru. If it's not needed, then what is the rush? Let's go through a proper review process. If there's doubt about whether procedural fairness should apply, then we should be treading very carefully. This is a complex area of law intersecting with constitutional principles, international obligations and human rights, and it should not be rushed.”
“There could be tens of thousands of people covered by this bill who have no right to procedural fairness when the government is taking significant actions that affect their rights. There may be practical reasons why this pathway won't be used much, but I don't think we should pass laws comfortable in the belief that they won't be used. If we are going to pass a law that makes it clear that no procedural fairness applies to such a large number of people, it deserves scrutiny. Finally, I'm concerned by the rushed nature of the bill. It was introduced last week without clear consultation and will likely be passed through the House today. The retrospective legalisation of all decisions made based on an erroneous understanding of the law deserves scrutiny rather than haste.”
“I understand that the people in question have had the chance to be heard, often numerous times before, and to appeal their cases before they get to the point where they're being removed from Australia, but procedural fairness is fundamental. It upholds the integrity, transparency and accountability of decision-making processes, and we shouldn't mess with it lightly. I'm not arguing that procedural fairness should never be removed from certain legal powers, but I believe that we always need proper scrutiny of the impacts when dealing with such a fundamental legal right. My third concern is that, while the government says this bill is aimed at the NZYQ cohort, its scope is far wider.”
“The Minister for Home Affairs made visa decisions based on a series of factors, one of which was the belief that indefinite detention was legal. If this is not the case, then those decisions could be invalid. Changing the law to make these decisions valid retrospectively is convenient, but it's not great law. We should be really cautious before we endorse such a step. That's why I want to see this bill referred to a committee. When we're talking about decisions that deal with such fundamental issues such as individual freedoms, we shouldn't just paper over the cracks because it's expedient. My second concern is that the bill declares that procedural fairness doesn't apply to certain types of executive actions. Any law that limits procedural fairness should be done carefully and with proper scrutiny.”
“It appears that the government is trying to do two things with the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. Firstly, it's trying to retrospectively fix any decision that was made before NZYQ based on the erroneous belief that indefinite detention was, at that time, legal. Secondly, it's trying to ensure that procedural fairness doesn't apply to certain types of executive power related to the removal of noncitizens in line with the TCXM decision. I have four main concerns about this bill. My first concern is about the retrospective validation of unlawful decisions. As a rough estimate, there could be a hundred decisions made before the NZYQ decision that this could affect, where applicants may be hopeful that a reconsideration of their case could deliver a different outcome.”
“Community safety is paramount, and we must have tools to remove people with violent criminal histories when they have no right to remain here. But, as legislators, we have a duty to make good law not just fast law. We need to balance security with fairness and efficiency with accountability. That's why this bill should go to committee. We owe it to the Australian public and to those affected by these laws to get it right.”
“The committee should consider, amongst other things, the number of visa decisions that may be affected by the original NZYQ court case and the implications for individuals of retrospectively validating these decisions, as opposed to allowing them to be reviewed; whether it's appropriate and justified to affirm the TCXM decision that procedural fairness does not apply in circumstances like this; and the potential impact of the bill beyond the NZYQ cohort. That scrutiny would give parliament the confidence to pass legislation that is precise, targeted and fair rather than broad and rushed. I would also like to see the bill reviewed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Let me be clear. I understand the government's desire to deal quickly with the NZYQ cohort.”
“This is a complex area of law intersecting with constitutional principles, international obligations and human rights. It should not be rushed. Parliament works best when we take the time to scrutinise legislation carefully, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. Concerns about the bill are shared by a number of groups that look deeply at these types of issues, including the Human Rights Law Centre, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Refugee Advice & Casework Service and Liberty Victoria. Given these concerns, I believe this bill should be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for consideration.”
“That's $1.4 million per individual, with an annual payment per individual of $250,000. It is essential that we deal with this cohort of people quickly and safely. Based on the TCXM case, procedural fairness has already been found, at least in the first-instance decision, not to apply to the exercise of executive power needed to remove the problem of this cohort to Nauru. If it's not needed, then what's the rush? Let's go through a proper process. The fact that this bill is being introduced rather than the TCXM decision being relied upon indicates that there may be some doubt about the application of procedural fairness. If there's doubt, we should be treading very carefully. The retrospective legalisation of all decisions made based on an erroneous understanding of the law deserves scrutiny rather than haste.”
“Some of this bill goes even further, to an even wider range of migrants. If we're going to pass a law that makes it clear that no procedural fairness applies to such a large number of people, it deserves scrutiny. Finally I'm concerned by the rushed nature of this bill. It was introduced last week without clear consultation and will likely be debated and passed tomorrow. The government is clearly desperate to deal with the NZYQ cohort. This is reflected in the eye-watering sums of money that the government is reportedly paying Nauru to accept these people. The Guardian has reported that the government has agreed to deport to 280 members of the NZYQ cohort to Nauru, compensating Nauru with a $400 million upfront payment and annual payments of $70 million a year.”
“I'm not arguing that procedural fairness should never be removed from certain legal powers, but I believe that we always need proper scrutiny of the impacts when dealing with such a fundamental legal right. My third concern is that, while the government says this bill is aimed at the NZYQ cohort, its scope is far wider. The bill largely applies to removal pathway noncitizens. This includes people on bridging visa R, the specific visa for the NZYQ group, but also many people on bridging visa E and potentially people without visas. That's a much larger population. Previous Senate estimates found that this could apply to over 80,000 people rather than just the 300-odd in the NZYQ cohort. It also appears to apply to migrants who still have legal pathways to remain in Australia, contradictory to the government's claims.”
“You might be caring for a partner with a serious illness. You might even be the wrong person, because of an administrative error. Under this bill, none of those matters could be raised as a matter of procedural fairness. You'd be legally obliged to comply with directions, and the government would be not required to hear your side. Following a Federal Court decision this year, the courts may have already found that procedural fairness doesn't apply to these particular powers. In that case, what's the rush? There's time to send this to a committee for proper scrutiny. If there is any doubt about the application of procedural fairness—which, presumably, there is, or the government would not be introducing this bill—then it deserves scrutiny.”
“People are more likely to accept outcomes, even unfavourable ones, if they believe the process is fair. Exempting procedural fairness removes basic safeguards such as the right to be heard or to challenge adverse evidence. This undermines public confidence in the fairness of government decision-making and increases the risk of factual errors or bias. Not allowing procedural fairness may be in breach of our obligations under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Imagine being told you're to be deported to Nauru immediately. The government has already shared your personal information with the Nauru government and purchased a visa on your behalf. You might have children at school here.”
“For centuries, our legal system has recognised that there are moral and philosophical concepts of fairness that are pretty universal. In the last 50 years, this has been articulated as a more specific concept of procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is not about giving people endless rights of appeal. It's about something much simpler: ensuring people have the chance to know what's being decided about them and to respond. Procedural fairness upholds the integrity, transparency and accountability of decision-making processes, especially in government and administrative contexts. It protects individual rights, which is especially important when decisions have serious personal consequences—like they do if we're deporting someone to a country they have no connection with—and it promotes trust in institutions.”
“The minister has made visa decisions based on a series of factors, one of which was the belief that indefinite detention was legal. If this is not the case, those decisions are invalid. This is my main concern with the bill and the main reason this should be referred to a committee. When we're talking about decisions that deal with such fundamental issues as individual freedoms, we should not just paper over the cracks. My second concern is that the bill declares that procedural fairness doesn't apply to these types of executive actions. While this may confirm the law as it exists right now, based on the finding of the TCXM case, any law that limits procedural fairness should be considered very carefully and with proper scrutiny. Changing the application of procedural fairness strikes at the heart of our legal system.”
“The bill validates past visa decisions that may now be unlawful following the NZYQ decision. Retrospective lawmaking is always problematic. It undermines confidence in the rule of law when parliament steps in to rewrite the legality of past actions. People who may have had valid grounds to challenge decisions will lose that opportunity. The way the law works, if a court interprets the law in a particular way, that's seen to be the way the law always was. So, decisions made based on a previous, erroneous understanding of the law are then invalid. Changing the law retrospectively to declare decisions valid even though they were made based on an erroneous understanding of the law undermines this legal principle, and we should be very cautious before endorsing such a step.”
“Procedural fairness is a simple concept that forms a fundamental safeguard in our legal system. When government is making a decision that will adversely affect a person, the person should be told, shown the evidence and given a fair chance to respond. If a person is set to be deported, the government can make all the arrangements overseas, such as negotiating a visa or entry into another country, without telling the person. That person will then be legally required to comply with directions, without any right to respond, even if the arrangements are mistaken, impractical or harmful. I have four main concerns with this bill which I think need to be considered by a committee. My first concern relates to the retrospective validation of unlawful decisions.”
“On procedural fairness, the bill makes it clear that the intention of the parliament is that procedural fairness does not apply in a set of specific powers used for deportation—namely, collecting, using and disclosing information to foreign countries—for example, sharing information about a potential migrant with a foreign country in preparation for deportation; collecting, using and disclosing criminal history information—for example, sharing criminal history information with a series of government officials in order to arrange for deportation; coming to arrangements with foreign countries to receive our deportees—for example, buying a Nauru visa for a migrant; and giving directions to a migrant to perform certain activities to facilitate their own deportation—for example, directing a migrant to purchase a passport.”
“This decision may be appealed in the future, but this bill aims to deal with this issue to limit further appeals. It appears that the government is trying to do two things with this bill: firstly, retrospectively fix any decision that was made before NZYQ, based on the erroneous belief that indefinite detention is legal; and, secondly, ensure that procedural fairness doesn't apply to certain types of executive power related to the removal of noncitizens, in line with the TCXM decision. By seeking to validate past removal decisions that might now be unlawful in light of the NZYQ court decision, this bill would remove the right for individuals to have their decisions remade based on a correct interpretation of the law.”
“The government scrambled to respond by granting this group visas known as bridging visa Rs with strict conditions—ankle bracelets, curfews and regular reporting. Later, some of those conditions were struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional. Since then, the government has sought ways to remove this group from Australia. One attempt was to deport three NZYQ members to Nauru. This was contested in the courts, based on the argument that the government had not applied the principle of procedural fairness. Earlier this year, the TCXM case found that procedural fairness did not apply to exercises of executive power like these, where a government is dealing with another government on behalf of an individual where a decision has already been made to deport them.”
“Before parliament passes a law relating to the application of procedural fairness for large classes of people, we should understand exactly who will be affected, how the powers will operate in practice, and what safeguards are needed to avoid serious error. Let me step back to explain how we got here. In November 2023, the High Court handed down the NZYQ decision, and the court ruled that indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there's no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. This meant the government could no longer keep certain noncitizens in detention indefinitely, and between 150 and 300 people were released into the community. These people became known as the NZYQ cohort. Some of them had serious criminal histories, including violent or sexual offences.”
“It could also apply to many who have not committed any criminal offence and who may not have finished exercising their review rights. Some estimates suggest the practical reach could extend to around 80,000 people—well beyond what the public has been led to believe. The fundamental problem is that parliament does not currently have a clear understanding of the true impact of this bill. We do not know how many people this bill could affect or in which circumstances. For that reason, I do not believe this bill should be rushed through the chamber. That's why I'm moving this motion to refer the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for detailed scrutiny.”
“The NZYQ decision has left us with a group of people in the community who have serious criminal histories, and the government needs tools to deal with them quickly. I support the intention to manage that group in a way that protects the community, but there are serious question marks about whether this bill is the best way to do that. It retrospectively validates an unknown number of decisions that were based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. It also provides that procedural fairness doesn't apply at key steps in the removal process, without a proper assessment of whether this is appropriate, and it applies to a much broader group than the up to 300 individuals commonly described as the NZYQ cohort.”
“I move: That the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for consideration and an advisory report. I rise today to highlight significant concerns about the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 that justify referring this bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This bill has been introduced in response to the High Court's NZYQ decision and the challenges that have followed. The government has been clear about its aim to expedite the removal of noncitizens who have exhausted all options to remain in Australia. I understand the government's concern.”
“To aim lower would be to turn away from the science and the opportunity. To gain a competitive edge and position ourselves for prosperity in the net zero global economy of the future, we must send investors a clear signal of our commitment to transformation. This decade presents a choice: we can cling to the climate wars of the past, settle for mediocrity or commit to building the industries, jobs and opportunities of the future. A target of 75 by '35 is that commitment, and all sides of politics should support it to end the climate wars and take a step forward to a future that's cleaner, fairer and more prosperous for all Australians.”
“This month, Australia faces a critical decision. We must submit our 2035 emissions reduction target to the United Nations. This decision will shape our climate policy, guide investment and define our national direction for the next decade. It also contributes to the planet our children will inherit. Based on the evidence, I believe we must aim for at least a 75 per cent emissions reduction target by 2035, and there's strong support for this in my electorate of Curtin. The reality is that, even if the whole world does this, we're likely to see an increase in temperature of 2.3 degrees. So a 100 per cent reduction is preferable, but 75 is an ambitious target that we can realistically achieve. It keeps us on the narrow path to net zero by 2050 and positions us as a leader in the global transition.”
“This is a question for the Prime Minister. Today, parliamentarians from across the House again heard personal stories about gambling harm, including from a Western Australian whose brother died by suicide after struggling with gambling addiction. The government hasn't even provided a response to the Murphy inquiry into online gambling, let alone implemented any of our key recommendations. Is the delay due to successful lobbying by powerful interests, and what do you say to people experiencing gambling harm who are still being bombarded by gambling ads?”
“Just look at Maincode's Matilda, a world-leading AI model built right here in Australia. Investment in our AI capability goes beyond funding startups and infrastructure like data centres; it's primarily about our people. That means supporting people in small businesses, schools and across our communities to deploy AI effectively and safely. It means developing world-leading expertise in our universities and research institutions and creating pathways for global AI talent to contribute here. AI presents an exciting frontier for this country, but we need to get a move on to ensure we can make the most of the opportunity in a safe way.”
“Last month I introduced a bill to criminalise the distribution and training of AI models designed to produce child sexual abuse material. We'll need to continually and rapidly stamp out horrific and unjustifiable uses of AI like this. Fourth, we need to invest in our AI capabilities, which means investing in our people, businesses, schools, startups and research organisations. Already we've spent so much time debating regulation and whether we're going to slam on the brakes or hit the accelerator that we've forgotten to put fuel in the car. Australia's investment in AI has been modest compared to similar countries. Canada just announced $2.4 billion in funds for AI research, which is 17 times what the Australian government has invested over the past five years. But we have enormous potential.”
“To take hold of the steering wheel, we need a taskforce that's capable of responding rapidly and holistically to AI development. To regulate in a timely way, this taskforce needs access to key policymakers and regulators. We need a coordinated plan to provide a clear direction to industry and ensure we're not working in silos. Second, we need an overarching legislative approach. Whether it's a standalone AI act or extending existing regulation, the goal is the same: support innovation while limiting harm. We must avoid getting bogged down in structure and focus on outcomes: safe, responsible and inclusive AI. Third, we must address the high-risk uses of AI that will inevitably escape an overarching legislative approach.”
“Artificial intelligence is already transforming our lives, from how we work and learn to how we make decisions and solve problems. It brings enormous potential to improve health outcomes and research, streamline government services and drive productivity. But it also poses serious risks: disinformation, bias, sexual exploitation and a loss of privacy. Getting the policy landscape right is going to be essential to ensure we maximise the good and limit the bad. But AI is moving fast and the government is already falling behind, so what must we do? First, we need a national AI taskforce and a clear plan. As the Tech Policy Design Institute has said, too often our choices are framed as binary: hit the brakes or slam the accelerator. But we can, and must, take hold of the steering wheel.”
“I urge the government to treat it as part of broader ongoing reform of our healthcare system and to focus on timely access to new medicines as a high priority. We need to continue to build a health system when no-one's left behind and where access to medicine and health care is not a privilege but a right.”
“I will be supporting that amendment even though I don't really agree with the second half of it, which says that the national interest would be progressed by a meeting between the Prime Minister and Donald Trump. I'm not convinced that a face-to-face meeting with the US President would actually further Australia's interests in relation to pharmaceuticals or other issues based on what we have seen from other meetings and it is the gratuitous attack line of the week. But I think the member makes a really good point in the first half of that amendment. We do need to get on with implementing the 50 recommendations that came out of the health technology assessment. In conclusion, I support this bill and the amendment.”
“It could involve patients earlier and more deeply to ensure that the full patient experience situation is considered. I'm aware that Minister Butler has committed to reforms and to implementing the 50 recommendations that came out of the health technology assessment. I appreciate that commitment but note that it's coming up to three years since those recommendations were made and it's time to get on with it. Just before speaking, I saw that there was an amendment put by the member for Lindsay on this legislation. I will be supporting that amendment, the first half of which really draws attention to this delay on implementing the health technology assessment.”
“But this is a step in the right direction. It reflects a commitment to equity, preventive care and easing the burden on everyday Australians. On a related issue, I'm frequently contacted by constituents about vital medicines they require that are not listed on the PBS. This includes medications for heart disease, cancer treatment and menopause management. A 2020 House committee inquiry showed that Australia is starting to lag behind in access to new medicines. It takes an average of 466 days from when the Therapeutic Goods Administration says a new medicine is safe to when it's actually added to the PBS. The assessment process for new medications is outdated. It's 30 years old. It doesn't consider many broader benefits, like keeping people out of hospital or in school, or longer term benefits.”
“The general PBS safety net remains high, requiring nearly $1,700 in annual spending before additional subsidies or support apply. That's a threshold far above what we see in countries like New Zealand or the UK and it leaves many low-income patients still vulnerable to high out-of-pocket expenses. The bill's impact assessment might have benefited from broader stakeholder consultation. The Office of Impact Analysis noted that, while the assessment was adequate, it lacked a detailed implementation and input from some key groups. We must remember that affordability is only one part of the equation. Medication adherence is influenced by many factors—access to pharmacies, health literacy and continuity of care. If we truly want to improve health outcomes, we must continue to address those systemic challenges.”
“It's estimated to save patients nearly $800 million over four years, which is a big number with a huge impact on individuals. Lower-cost medicines means fewer skipped doses, fewer delayed treatments and fewer people forced to choose between their health and their household budget. The bill also expands access to vital treatments, covering conditions like breast cancer, endometriosis, menopause and rare diseases. These are not fringe issues. They affect thousands of Australians. This legislation will make a real difference in their lives. But, while I support this bill, I do so with a clear understanding of its limitations. This is a step in the right direction, but there are still plenty of people struggling with the cost of medicines.”
“I'm speaking today in support of the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. This is a bill that aims to ease the financial burden on Australians and improve access to essential medicines, which I commend. The bill also implements a key pre-election promise from the Labor Party, which was matched by the coalition, so we're unlikely to see much opposition to this bill from the coalition. This election promise matching is good for swift outcomes but could be bad, more broadly, for critical analysis of new laws. That said, reducing the PBS co-payment from $31.60 to $25 for patients with a concession card is a meaningful step. For many Australians, particularly those managing chronic conditions or supporting families, this change will result in hundreds of dollars in annual savings.”
“We can all do more to be aware of how we're reinforcing stereotypes and to promote role models who challenge those stereotypes. Economic equality for women is not a niche issue, and I urge the government to keep this in mind in all policy development.”
“This is the result of lower pay, interrupted careers, unpaid care work and undervalued professions—economic inequality that compounds over a woman's lifetime. Aware Super shows that women aged 45-59 have a median super balance that's $46,000 lower than men's. It's a gap that leaves older women vulnerable to poverty, housing insecurity and homelessness. In fact, older women are the fastest-growing group of people experiencing homelessness in Australia. Lastly, we all have a role to play in how we think about gender. Gender norms are internalised from childhood and reinforced through media, education and workplace culture. We all bear responsibility for this, and it's often so ingrained that we don't even realise it. A few months ago, I was fairly criticised by Gruen on ABC for doing a social media post while washing the dishes.”
“The WGEA shows that, when you look at total renumeration, women earn nearly 22 per cent less than men. Over the course of the year, that difference adds up to more than $28,000. This includes the annualised full-time equivalent salaries of casual and part-time workers, so it's not explained by women working fewer hours. It's largely driven by subconscious biases, including how we value different types of work. We must appropriately value feminised industries like child care, health care, education and social assistance. These sectors are critical to our society and economy, yet they remain underpaid and undervalued. Third is superannuation. Women retire with significantly less super than men. At retirement age, nearly one in four women have no superannuation at all.”
“Her mother, who has vascular dementia, has just moved in with Jo and her family, and Jo says it's a privilege to care for her mother but points out that even with a level 4 package the hours of support will go nowhere near covering her work hours. Jo's start-up health business is exactly the sort of thing that the recent productivity roundtable wants to encourage. Women make up 91 per cent of 'sandwich' carers, and nearly half of them also hold jobs, like Jo. They are stretched thin—financially, emotionally and physically. Many are forced to choose between their careers and caregiving, sacrificing superannuation, promotions and personal wellbeing. We must remove structural disincentives to women's workforce participation and ensure our caring structures are suitable for women playing multiple caring roles. Then there's the gender pay gap.”
“Expanding paid parental leave to 24 weeks and paying superannuation on it is a step in the right direction—so is increasing wages in feminised professions. But there's more to be done. I want to talk about four things: the rising 'sandwich generation', the gender pay gap, superannuation and cultural norms. I recently met with constituent Josephine Muir, who is part of the 1.5-million-strong 'sandwich generation', which is largely made up of mothers, daughters and professionals who are simultaneously raising children and caring for ageing parents. They are the backbones of our families, yet too often they are invisible in our policy conversations. Jo told me about the impracticality of the aged-care system.”
“We endeavoured to share the parenting joys and burdens, but like so many other mums I ended up carrying much of the mental load. I was the one who thought ahead to the school holidays, organised the costumes, the play dates and the extracurricular activities, and constantly cleaned up after them. There's also the discretionary caring—supporting other family members or friends when they need it. We just expect women to take on these tasks, and it has an impact. The reality is that despite decades of progress women in Australia continue to face systemic barriers that limit their economic security, independence and opportunity. This government has taken some steps towards addressing economic inequality.”
“Economic equality for Australian women is a matter close to my heart. In many ways, I've been extremely fortunate—I had a good education, I have a supportive husband and I was able to work part time for 16 years while my kids were young. I'm also lucky enough to have two parents who are still healthy. But even with a relatively fortunate parenting and career journey, I'm aware of the subtle differences in expectations and structures that drive significantly different economic outcomes for women. When I had my first child, it made sense for me to take time off because I earned slightly less than my husband, who was a few years further into his career than me. I took 18 months off after each of my three children, which put me 4½ years behind my husband in terms of superannuation contributions.”
“Many of the issues raised by stakeholders are not simple queries and will take time to work through. We need our universities to be safe places for students, but, in doing that, we need to ensure that this code is focused on practical, meaningful action that university stakeholders can take, not more regulation and box ticking. We owe it to students to get this right.”
“It acknowledges that sexual assault and sexual harassment in universities is not a marginal issue and more must be done. It provides for a national code to establish clear, enforceable standards. It creates mechanisms for accountability and enforcement, and it affirms that every student deserves to feel safe and supported in their place of learning. I'm heartened by the goodwill of the stakeholders. Universities, student accommodation providers, student guilds and students themselves all want universities to be safer places, but the concerns listed here show how much work is still to be done to ensure that universities and student accommodation providers are realistically able to comply with the code. I urge the government to appropriately resource the department to support all stakeholders through this implementation process.”