I joined 6 other speakers, each sharing a different reflection on that dateful moment in 2012. When it was my turn to speak, I stared into the dark and took two deep breaths, before sharing why I had spent the past six years working to progress gender equality, why I’d founded Raise Our Voice Australia, a social enterprise aimed at mobilising young women and gender diverse people to transform policy and politics, and the legacy of that now famous speech for young people.

The audience was full of women, many of whom had brought their daughters, eager to share intergenerational reflections on this visceral rallying call as our highest political leader spoke up against treatment women had experienced for decades. In conversations afterwards, I heard both their optimism, and their frustration in how far we still had to go.

As part of my role leading Raise Our Voice Australia, I speak to young women and gender diverse people every week. Overwhelmingly, these young people, aged between 12-32 from across Australia, are smart, driven, and have a clear idea of the future they want to create – a future centred on climate change, equality, positive mental health, and support for education. Their message is clear: we’re passionate, can lead important change, and we don’t want to run for office as we don’t want to be in the firing line. Because, despite measures to get more women into politics, the lack of media accountability is stark.

I founded Raise Our Voice Australia in 2020, after years lamenting the absence of young women and gender diverse people from the seats of Australia’s parliaments. Years before, I co-founded a campaign to help young people ask “why not me?” when looking at their political representatives. After working in domestic policy and foreign policy as a senior policy officer, it was clear to me that those with the most at stake – young people – were missing from this decision making. Raise Our Voice Australia started with a training program, sharing knowledge on and networks in these key areas, before launching campaigns to connect young people with their elected representatives, running research, and building our community.

At Raise Our Voice Australia, we talk about how politics for women is shifting, and yet, this week was a visceral reminder that despite some positive shifts since 2017, some things haven’t changed.

You don’t have to look far to find a negative media story about women in the public eye, especially near the campaign trail. While gender was a key talking point in the 2022 federal election, media reporting of women remains reliant on outdated tropes. Who’s taking care of her family? Variations on “she was too emotional”. And recently, when I saw that Nine edited Georgie Purcell’s photo, enlarging her breasts and editing in a non-existent midriff, I was irate.

When Nine blamed its editing of Georgie Purcell’s photo – the youngest member of Victorian Parliament and a young, passionate woman who’s upset many on the conservative side of politics with her progressive views and her tendency to challenge the status quo – their excuses seemed laughable. It takes no stretch of the imagination to believe that the photo editing was deliberate.

After Adobe denied Nine’s claims of “but it was the AI,” the final insult was The Australian newspaper describing Purcell as a “ former stripper,” seemingly aimed at devaluing her worth and status as an important female politician based on her prior employment. In 2022, research conducted by Raise Our Voice Australia in partnership with the Body Shop Australia New Zealand, found that 13 per cent of young women and gender‑diverse people felt represented in politics, with just 35 per cent saying they would consider politics as a career.

Interrogating the media’s treatment of women in the public eye, 87 per cent of respondents reported that representation of women in politics by the media is mostly negative. Respondents cited the treatment of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, alongside the commentary surrounding Brittany Higgins, and Grace Tame. Other respondents noted the additional vitriol levelled as women of colour, First Nations people, gender diverse people, disabled people and sex workers.

In Australia, many of our media companies lack integrity. Too many rely on manufacturing outrage and printing stories that devalue women. When Georgie is described as a “former stripper” whether we like it or not, people click on the stories, and media companies know this. It’s gross and demeaning, reminiscent of a bunch of boys jeering and letting the woman know that they don’t value her achievements.

Like many media subjects before her, Georgie is an impressive MP, and a role model to so many young people, myself including. In the age of TikTok, too many articles are the product of the attention economy and drive click-bait journalism. What happened to pieces that are fact checked and rigorous? What happened to quality journalism? Some might even argue the public must also be held responsible for the maintenance of these tropes – after all, it’s us in the comment sections driving these debates. But, where are the media organisations leading a nuanced discussion on issues of policy rather than publishing the same tired,misogynistic click bait?

Four years into running Raise Our Voice Australia, I’m often overwhelmed by the scope of the problem we’re trying to fix. I’m frustrated. Frustrated that with every step forward, there’s someone – a journalist, editor or media outlet – who refuses to move. That we continue to ask women to “just put their hands up” or “lean in” while we tear them down in the media and in comment sections. The business case for diversity is strong: when we have more diversity in leadership, better outcomes are reached. And who doesn’t want better outcomes for all Australians?

Last year, I completed Pathways to Politics through Melbourne University. I’m determined that these hateful bullies do not win. In a cohort of 30 women, I received training on how to run for office and hear from incredible women political leaders.

If we truly want a better future, we need change, and we need accountability. It’s time that media outlets took some responsibility, and we the public voted with our clicks. If you’re sexist, I won’t subscribe. Newspapers are a declining medium, so if they want Gen Z, millennial and Gen X subscribers, they need to refocus their stories to meet our modern standards of inclusion and diversity.

As for Georgie? I couldn’t have more admiration for her courage, and for calling out this misogyny. But she shouldn’t have to. It’s time for change. The stakes are too high not to.

The post After the misogynistic media treatment of Georgie Purcell, is it any wonder young women are hesitant to pursue politics? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The former Prime Minister of Australia revealed he will be taking up several global strategic advisory positions and roles on private boards. His main area of focus will be on the US and the Indo-Pacific region.

Speculation on his retirement has been growing in the last eight months, with Australian media outlets first to break the story of his imminent departure today.

Morrison released a statement shortly after, saying he is looking forward to taking on “new challenges”, as well as spending more time with his family and his Church community.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Scott Morrison (@scottmorrisonmp)

“After having served in the parliament for more than sixteen years, including almost 4 years as Prime Minister during a very challenging time for our country, now is the time to move on and enable a new member to be elected who can bring fresh energy and a long term commitment to serving our local community in this role,” Morrison said.

“My family have sacrificed a great deal to support my service to our country and local community as a member of parliament, Minister and Prime Minister. I am grateful for their support, but the time has come for me to return to private life and support my family to pursue their goals and for us to spend more time together as a family.”

The legacy of Scomo

Scott Morrison has been the Liberal Member for Cook since 2007. He became a cabinet minister in 2013 as the immigration minister and held other portfolios in his time, including social services minister and the treasurer. 

Four of his 16 years in politics were served as the Prime Minister of Australia, after he took over as leader of the Liberal party when Malcolm Turnbull resigned.

“It has been my great privilege to represent the wonderful people of Cook for more than sixteen years in our federal parliament,” he said. “The decision to leave is always a difficult one when you have been doing something you love and feel passionate about.”

Morrison’s retirement will trigger a by-election in the Division of Cook, the electorate that covers south of Sydney, including Cronulla, Gymea and Kogarah.

“I hope to see, and invite, a strong field of candidates to bring their experience, passion and dedication to our community, to the job,” Morrison said in his statement.

“I look forward to supporting that successful candidate in their local campaign, along with our Party Leader Peter Dutton and his deputy Sussan Ley who are doing a great job holding the Albanese Labor Government to account, and providing a clear alternative to lead Australia forward.”

Since 1969, the Cook electorate has only ever had one Labor MP representing its constituents in parliament – Ray Thorburn, who held the seat from 1972-1975. For the 52 other years, the Liberal party has held the seat.

In his statement, Morrison said he was proud of his achievements in government, including his role in the global pandemic “saving lives and livelihoods”.

“There will be time later to speak of these achievements and thank everyone involved, including my parliamentary colleagues, when I leave the parliament,” he said.

“Today, my priority is to express my deep gratitude to my community and my family for supporting me to do this job for as long as I have. It has been an honour.”

Morrison’s book

Earlier this month, the former Prime Minister announced the release date of his new book, Plans For Your Good: A Prime Minister’s Testimony of God’s Faithfulness.

Morrison is publishing his book with Thomas Nelson, a branch of Harper Collins Christian Publishing. The expected release date of the 288-page book is May 21, marking exactly two years since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defeated him in the 2022 Federal Election.

Morrison and his publisher have clarified the book will be less of a political memoir and more “pastoral encouragement”, reflecting on how God and his Christian faith has helped guide him throughout his 16-year political career and four-year leadership of Australia.

On the Thomas Nelson website, his publisher says the book will come at a time “where cancel culture, identity politics and deep secularisation is taking hold across so many western societies.”

Upon announcing the release date of his book, Morrison revealed who will be writing the foreword: former Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence.

Morrison and Pence are thought to have a strong relationship, developed during their time in office. According to reports from The Sydney Morning Herald, Morrison phoned Pence, not Trump, when the Trump administration failed to secure a second term in office at the 2020 US election.

Pence is also very open about his strong Christian faith. In 2022, Pence released his own faith-centred memoir, titled So Help Me God.

According to an article in Politico, Mike Pence often says: “I am a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.”

The inclusion of Pence’s foreword is expected to assist the book in expanding its market interest globally, especially in the US.

The post Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison will resign from politics in February appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Dayana Yastremska and Marta Kostyuk, the two Ukrainian players to make the top eight, have used post-match press conferences to address their concerns over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, expressing their fears that “people are starting to forget about what is going on.”

At a media conference after her fourth-round victory, Yastremska described the emotional toll the war has had on her.

“It’s tough emotionally to play, but the worst thing is you feel like you were already accepting this, what is happening,” the 23-year old said. “It’s tough to play, but after two years you get to manage already how to deal with all the emotions and with everything that is going on inside.”

“The war, of course, it’s affected us, well, a lot. Because you cannot go home like you wanted, when you wanted, like it was before. You always read the news. You always see the videos.”

Yastremska, ranked 93rd in the world, defeated 18th seed Belarusian Victoria Azarenka 7-6 (8/6), 6-4 to advance to the quarterfinals for the first time in her career. There, she will face 19-year old Czech player Linda Nosková. The match will take place on Wednesday. 

Yastremska was born in Odesa in May 2000 and began playing tennis aged five. At 15, she made her  junior major debut at the 2016 Australian Open, where she reached the singles quarterfinals, losing to Swiss-born Spanish player Rebeka Masarova.

This year marks the first time in Australian Open history that two players from Ukraine have reached the women’s quarterfinals.  A record 7 women from Ukraine competed in the main draw of the main tournament this year.

Yastremska will be joined by Marta Kostyuk. Kostyuk, who is currently unseeded, has also been outspoken about the war during her Australian Open campaign. 

After her fourth-round win over Russia’s Maria Timofeeva 6-2, 6-1, the 21-year old said the last two years has been “very difficult.” 

“It really seems for a lot of people that [the war] is over,” she said. 

“Something incredible happened. Ukraine managed to not be [captured] in three days, in Kyiv as well. So it was like all a miracle. I feel it’s not a miracle any more, so why talk about it? Yeah, I hope that the [Ukrainian] girls can keep on doing what they’re doing and reminding as much as possible.”

“The war is still there. People are still dying every day.” 

Following her victory against Timofeeva, Kostyuk returned to her chair, refusing to acknowledge her Russian opponent.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, players from Ukraine have not been shaking hands with players from Russia in a gesture of solidarity with the soldiers fighting on the frontlines.

“I feel like in general it’s a lot of processes happening to come to this point where people forget about it because people get used to it,” Kostyuk said. 

“I understand that everyone has their own issues, and everyone is focused on their thing. I think I’m here to remind everyone all the time that it’s still on, and it should be stopped. It’s not normal that it’s happening.”

“If there was never a war in my life, I don’t think I would be able to grow this much as I grew in the last two years.”

Kostyuk praised her fellow Ukrainian players, adding that she is “…very proud of all of us, honestly, for standing for so long and not losing faith and still fighting and fighting for our rights and fighting for everyone basically.” 

“I think it just shows how strong Ukrainian people are.”

On Sunday night, Kostyuk criticised a post from the official US Open account which displayed a Russian flag next to Timofeeva’s name. 

At this year’s Australian Open, Russian and Belarusian players are playing as neutral athletes — their flags replaced by dark blue squares.

“Today, after my victory over the athlete from the aggressor country, the Russian flag was published on the official resource of one of the biggest tennis tournaments in the world,” Kostyuk wrote about the post, which has since been deleted. 

“The sports world continues to promote a murderous country and a country that uses its athletes as part of its propaganda. I call on media representatives, officials and the sports community to stop using the tennis court to promote ‘Russian peace’.” 

This is not Kostyuk’s first appearance at the Australian Open. In 2018, aged 15, she became the youngest player in more than 20 years to reach the third round of a Grand Slam at the Australian Open.

Kostyuk is due to face reigning US Open champion and fourth seed Coco Gauff later today in the quarterfinals. 

The post Two Ukrainian players reach Australian Open women’s quarterfinals, using platform to speak about impact of war appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The Minister fronted the National Press Club on Wednesday discussing the risks faced on social media platforms, dating apps and gambling advertisements in the “era of digital giants”, and how the Albanese Labor government plans to address the challenges.

“Within a complex network of networks, there is rarely a net solution to a challenge,” Minister Rowland said. 

“While the technology itself is complex, that pales in comparison to the interactions and collaborations enabled by it.”

In her Press Club address, Minister Rowland announced on behalf of the federal government that consultation for proposed legislation amendments to “strengthen Australia’s basic online safety expectations” will commence today. Submissions will be open until February 16, 2024.

Rowland also said the review of the Online Safety Act, as promised, has also been brought forward one year, expected to commence in early 2024. The Minister announced in the Press Club address that Delia Rickard, the former deputy chair of the ACC, will conduct the review.

These steps towards addressing online safety in Australia come after research from the University of Canberra reported 70 per cent of Australians are concerned about misinformation.

“Both misinformation and disinformation can cause serious harm, sow divisions within the community, undermine trust and threaten public health and safety,” Rowland said.

“In the era of digital giants, it’s more important than ever that Australia asserts its values and the community standards we expect online.”

Minister Rowland spoke about the responsibility digital platforms and the government alike have to protect people, particularly youth, online.

“There is a difference between a young person having a bad experience in the schoolyard and being subjected to a deluge around the clock abuse and harassment over social media,” she said.

“This is not to say that one is more benign than the other – just that it is critical we understand these differences so that we can be intentional about the appropriate regulatory settings that should apply.”

The safety of dating apps is also a major concern for the Minister.

“The dating apps are offering a hugely popular service. It’s now the most common way to meet someone in Australia,” she said. 

“But Australians need to be able to do so safely.”

Reflecting on her own media consumption habits as a young person – reading newspapers, listening to the radio and watching television – Minister Rowland said the “vectors” of communications have “not only expanded, but their ability to scale has increased”.

This is in part due to the emergence of generative AI, the Minister said.

“Indeed, the potential for the spread of AI generated messages information makes taking action even more pressing,” she said.

Humanitarian crisis in Gaza

As the world watches the humanitarian crisis in Gaza unfold, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism online has increased drastically.

It has been a major concern for the government, as expressed by many MPs in the House of Representatives, including independent MP Dai Le.

Le cited reports from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which reported 221 anti-Semitic incidents in the last month, 42 of which occurred within just one week.

Likewise, the Islamophobia Register Australia reported 133 incidents, which Le noted is likely to be higher, since Islamophobia largely goes unreported.

“Australia does not condone this abhorrent upward trend of targeted violence against any communities in our diverse country,” Le said.

At the National Press Club address on Wednesday, Rowland was asked whether “religious exemptions” would be considered in the proposed amendments to online safety and misinformation legislation.

“We understand that there has been concern from a variety of faith organisations that their religious views should not be considered as part of this,” Rowland said. 

“We are working through that at the moment and we’ll have more to say in due course.”

Rowland said the government is planning to “work through precisely what those exemptions will be”.

“There have been calls for exemptions to be removed, including when it comes to authorised election material and also as it applies to media services as well,” she said.

“I’ve made it clear that those exemptions are in there for a reason. It’s because they are regulated elsewhere in different laws.”

The post ‘There is rarely a net solution’: Michelle Rowland announces government plan to address online safety appeared first on Women's Agenda.

It’s his $15.8 billion AUD net worth.

Nine media recently acquired secret tapes recording Anthony Pratt, owner of the billion-dollar packaging company Pratt Holdings. The recordings reveal much about his relationships with former US President Donald Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, even King Charles III.

But it also sparks questions surrounding money, politics and power and casts doubt over the integrity of the political systems in both Australia and the US.

What are political donations?

People giving money to political parties or campaigns is nothing new. In the 2021-2022 financial year, Anthony Pratt was the second largest donor, giving nearly $4 million AUD.

It wasn’t nearly as much as Mineralogy Pty Ltd, donating a total of $117.1 million AUD, all of which went to Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party.

But payments aren’t always made with an ulterior motive, explains Dr Catherine Williams, research director at the Centre for Public Integrity. In theory, political donations are indicative of a working democratic society.

“Political donations are payments that are made for no consideration or inadequate consideration to political parties,” she says.

“A person or an organisation might donate to a party or candidate whose policy positions or values they support. Where these donations are in small amounts, that’s reflective of a thriving democracy.

“When you get small amounts being contributed by members of the community, you know the populace is engaged in its democracy.”

All political donations above the disclosure threshold, which this financial year is indexed to $16,300, must be reported to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)’s Transparency Register. 

“The difficulty comes with these really substantial amounts of money,” Dr Williams continues.

“What the people who are making those payments might be doing is seeking to have either favourable decisions made about permit applications that they might be making, or to enable them to have privileged access to the political process.”

"Society should reconsider whether politicians should further receive retirement benefits given some take up lucrative lobbying jobs, a director of the Centre for Public Integrity, barrister Geoffrey Watson, SC"https://t.co/2Xj6FXyqjR

— The Centre For Public Integrity (@cpi_aus) October 24, 2023

Political donations in the 2022 Federal Election

In February this year, The Guardian reported the top ten political donors in the last financial year accounted for 77 per cent of all political donations, totalling around $137 million. 

The largest donors came from fossil fuel, gambling and alcohol companies. According to the Grattan Institute, most of the major donors to the Coalition were wealthy individuals and corporate donations.

The Australian Conservation Foundation reported that, in the lead up to the 2022 Australian federal election in May last year, fossil fuel companies donated more to Labor ($1.4 million) than to Coalition parties ($900,000). The organisation’s analysis attributed this change to the companies “sensing a change in government”.

Campaigns for Australia’s latest referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which failed with a majority No vote from the public, also received a number of political donations. 

In April this year, The Australian Financial Review reported that the Yes campaign received $17 million from more than 20 of Australia’s richest philanthropists and family foundations, including the Besen Foundation, Jo Horgan’s Mecca M Power and The Myer Foundation.

Meanwhile, Advance, the conservative political group spearheading the No campaign, was backed by former fund manager Simon Fenwick, who donated $250,000. Sydney millionaire Rodney O’Neil, whose family generates profit in building material with Australian Blue Metal, Hymix and other companies, also donated around $85,000 last year.

There are a number of other donors – on both campaign sides of the referendum – and the full amount that was donated won’t be known until April next year.

Dr Williams from the Centre of Public Integrity says large donations made from wealthy individuals or organisations can have a “corrosive impact on public trust”, particularly since there is no spending cap on donations.

“They (the public) might perceive decisions made favourable to these persons to be a consequence of those donations,” she says.

“There’s also the potential for electoral outcomes to be distorted because of the absence of a spending cap.

“So we’re in this situation whereby the more donations you can get, the more money you can spend and, potentially, you can distort the election outcome.”

Anthony Pratt

On October 5, the world discovered former US President Donald Trump had reportedly revealed national security secrets to at least 45 other unauthorised people.

One of those people was Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt.

This week, Donald Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social, rejecting the claims as “fake news”. He called Pratt “a red haired weirdo from Australia” and said he never revealed those secrets to him.

It’s a far cry from how Trump has previously spoken of Pratt – a “friend”, a “great gentleman”, even “Australia’s most successful man”.

While it’s difficult to confirm for sure what changed, Nine media acquired secret recordings of Anthony Pratt discussing how he has accessed the power of Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, King Charles III and more through his own superpower – “being rich”.

Although Pratt likened Trump and Giuliani to “the mafia”, investigative journalist from The Age Nick McKenzie said that title is an expression of Pratt as a “fanboy” of their power.

“That’s not a condemnation – he thinks that’s kind of cool because they’re powerful. Nobody messes with them. They take no prisoners,” McKenzie said in Nine media’s Please Explain podcast.

“This is a study of power, and what the powerful say when they think no one is listening. That’s why it’s so revealing.”

A report on Nine’s current affairs program 60 Minutes revealed Pratt once paid Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s “killer lawyer” and right-hand man, $1 million to attend his 60th birthday party in Melbourne.

Why? Because, as Pratt said in the tapes: “Rudy is someone who I hope will be useful one day.”

“We suspect the wealthy and powerful in the business world seek these relationships for their own interests,” McKenzie said in the Please Explain podcast.

“We can see it happening sometimes from a distance, but very rarely do we see these very powerful business people explain albeit while they’re not knowing they’re being recorded, about what it is that they’re actually seeking in their own words.”

Richard Baker from The Age suggested Pratt uses his money in this way for the “rub-off effect” of being close to Giuliani.

“Anyone who wants to go after Pratt or take him on might find that he can stick Giuliani onto them… so there’s a protective thing there as well,” he said in the podcast.

“Giuliani also – I guess just by being plugged into the Trump network when Trump was in the White House – got access to all sorts of information, that could be valuable in a business sense, in a personal sense, because he was that close to power himself and he was an attack dog for the President.

“And this billionaire was hoping that if he needed him, he could do the same for him.”

Access to Giuliani means, by default, access to Trump. The covert tapes obtained by Nine media revealed Trump told Pratt of various state secrets, including the ordering of an airstrike on Iranian-linked militants in Iraq in 2019, as well as the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy asking him to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

With his money, power and influence, it seems Pratt ensured all ground was covered. Nine media’s sources indicate Pratt paid $182,000 in 2021 to then Prince Charles, now King Charles III.

On home soil, Pratt reportedly made consulting payments of $25,000 a month to Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister of Australia. He also paid former Prime Minister Tony Abbott $8,000 a month.

McKenzie from The Age said in the Please Explain podcast the payments to the political figures means something, including shaping both the political and the media narrative.

“It does suggest a pattern that Pratt wants to get very influential political heavy weights close to him,” he said.

“That should lead voters in Australia, the United States, to question why it is that billionaires align themselves with politicians and leaders. Is it because they genuinely think they’re great leaders? Or because there’s some other interest at play?”

The post ‘My superpower is that I’m rich’: How billionaires can pay their way into politics appeared first on Women's Agenda.

A key observation in the piece was that “having a job” and “building a family” were probably two of the most predictable activities that most humans are likely to undertake in their lifetimes. 

Yet for 50 percent of the population, these two activities are often incompatible.

Sure, women are allowed to have jobs these days. And legally we can’t be discriminated against when we get pregnant, or return to work following maternity leave. Yay.

Yet reality paints a very different picture. 

We have a funding dearth for female-led ventures, as well as informal manuals on “Fundraising While Pregnant” to avoid (already illegal) discrimination. 

When returning to work, we have a motherhood penalty, dozens of reports of workplace discrimination against pregnant people, and ample tales of discrimination against lactating people. 

And it all stings a little more when you learn about the fatherhood premium…

Yet it’s not even limited to the workplace. Just recently a woman was thrown out of a Victorian Court for breastfeeding. Sorry, bubs, court is in session. Please schedule your hunger outside of office hours.

But it’s 2023! No one is forcing women into the nursery. 

Don’t most new mothers just choose to stay home and work on average 96 hours per week or the equivalent of $230,000 worth of labour for the neat little sum of zero dollars?

The myth of personal choice

Women – even mothers! – are fully autonomous, intelligent beings perfectly capable of making their own choices. 

Except “personal choice” cannot be de-linked from the context in which it is exercised.

Is it really a woman’s personal choice to halt her career for child caring reasons when the gender pay gap and leadership gap mean her husband’s job is often simply the higher earner? And many fathers still don’t get parental leave? And societal norms still stigmatise both fathers and mothers when fathers are the stay-at-home parent? And the alternative of childcare is often unaffordable or unavailable?

Likewise, if women must choose between continuing to breastfeed and returning to work, is it really “personal choice” that dictates her next steps?

Not to mention the laughable assertion that becoming pregnant in the first place is a “lifestyle choice” women make, somehow in a void entirely absent of a father also pushing for said situation.

Anti-sexism efforts must holistically focus on changing a wide range of unjust social systems (both private and public), as well as influencing individuals’ minds and the hive mind of society.

But how do we even begin while sexism continues to permeate our very highest form of power – our political system?

A country run on exclusion

In writing my aforementioned first-ever editorial, I had the privilege of interviewing Jo Haylen, then Mayor of Marrickville, and now Labor Member for Summer Hill and the NSW Minister for Transport. 

When the topic of abortion came up, Ms Haylen dryly commented that “if men needed to get them, they’d be available on every street corner”. We laughed… and then sighed. 

Because it was true.

(I hope Ms Haylen doesn’t mind me putting this on the record now, given her years spent lobbying for greater abortions rights in NSW.)

The sinister truth underpinning this “joke” is that those in power determine the range of opportunities and limitations for those who are not. 

When those in power do not share our interests – and are indeed sometimes deeply incentivised to withhold them from us – we are left with discrimination at a systemic level.

In Julia Banks’ brilliant exposé on the sexism saturating Australian politics, Power Play, she reveals a thoroughly hostile environment for women in politics.

Her own experience of indecent assault in the prime minister’s wing during a crowded function – while occupying a position of power herself – speaks volumes.

According to Ms Banks, “What kept me awake was more the thought of what he might have done or could do to other women. Younger women, less senior women. Women where there is a significant power disparity, whose job depended on men in power. Staffers or press gallery journalists.

“I kept thinking to myself over and over, If he was prepared to do that to me – a fifty-something, corporate lawyer MP – in that room, what must he do to women he has real power over?”

Indeed.

This incident was but one moment in many years’ worth of misogyny experienced directly or witnessed by Ms Banks during her time walking the halls of Australia’s political elite.

In such an environment – why would any woman want to join the ranks of Australian legislators? And, if they chose to do so, how could they bring topics of critical importance to women to the forefront? 

And so it goes that even women in positions of power are put in their place. Exhausted. Bullied. And the fight for alignment between “having a job” and “building a family” continues for half the population.

Yet joke’s on the people holding us down! The ramifications of this extend far further than to the individual women experiencing it.

It’s the economy, stupid

We can’t just stop having kids. Just ask any economist passionate about the 2.1 children each woman needs to birth on average to maintain the population levels that will prevent our national economy from imploding.

So to bring it back to breastfeeding – which  96 percent of Australian mothers start out doing after the roughly 330,000 births that occur each year in Australia – this is not a niche “women’s” issue. 

From a business perspective, studies show that mothers who wish to breastfeed may delay returning to work if their workplaces do not provide a supportive environment. 

We also know that Australia’s productivity growth suffers when women – a scarce source of highly educated labour – are underemployed. And nationwide staff shortages mean we cannot afford to overlook any form of underemployment.

So if national productivity growth is to be maintained, the different life cycles of men and women must inform policy solutions and business practices for a thriving economy that benefits us all.

It is not just wildly unacceptable from a moral perspective that mothers are still facing such dilemmas in 2023, while fathers are not. It’s also deeply linked to our economic best interests.

So here’s hoping that this editorial ages poorly, the stats contained therein become redundant, and I don’t need to write it all over again in another 10 years’ time.

The post Got milk? How breastfeeding relates to politics, power, and money appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Latham made a public statement on Facebook claiming Hanson, the head of her party One Nation, had taken over the party’s branch in NSW “without consultation or due process” on Wednesday August 9, using her National Executive powers.

“Good party members who work exceptionally hard for One Nation have been kicked off the Executive,” Latham wrote in the statement.

Latham has recently made headlines in a defamation case brought against him by independent MP Alex Greenwich, claiming a homophobic tweet he wrote earlier this year was his “honest opinion”.

As a result of the ongoing legal proceedings, Hanson and Latham have reportedly not seen eye to eye as of late.

Hanson’s intervention leaves Latham, along with the two other One Nation representatives in NSW’s Upper House, Rod Roberts and Tania Mihailuk, without an official leader.

Latham said Hanson justified the political ousting by citing a 1 per cent fall in the Upper House vote, which he said is still 2 per cent ahead of the NSW Senate result from 2022.

“In Queensland, Hanson’s Senate vote fell by 3 per cent and she only just scraped in for re-election,” Latham said.

“If she is worried about under-performance, her best solution is to buy a mirror.”

Latham called Hanson’s decision to scrap the position of NSW One Nation Parliamentary Leader “bizarre” and likened it to “something the Greens do in the NSW Parliament”.

“Our NSW party was moving forward in a sensible, cooperative way but has now been turned upside down by the Queensland intervention,” he wrote.

“Over the past five years we have built up into the largest One Nation parliamentary party in the country – so where’s the problem?”

Latham said Hanson had replaced him with Queensland and Tasmania members of One Nation who “did not lift a finger to help us” during the March election in NSW.

“The Queensland takeover is not about performance. It is about money,” he said.

“As NSW One Nation Leader I have stood in the way of attempts to misuse our funds, especially the administration money contributed by NSW taxpayers through the Electoral Commission.

“I will continue to fight for the proper, ethical use of this money.”

A statement from a spokesperson for Pauline Hanson confirmed the position of NSW parliamentary leader, which Mark Latham previously held, is open.

“The new executive’s priority is a comprehensive review of the party’s organisation ahead of future election campaigns, with a focus on the relationship between the organisation and parliamentary wings of the party, and the performance of the parliamentary wing,” the statement given to The Guardian read.

“The national executive of the party has also declared vacant the position of NSW parliamentary leader while the review takes place.

The spokesperson for Senator Hanson confirmed that no one had been sacked as a member of One Nation.

“When Senator Hanson is confident the organisation and parliamentary wings of the party have established an effective, strong and collaborative working relationship under her leadership, she will consider opening the position of NSW parliamentary leader for nominations,” the spokesperson wrote in the statement.

More on Mark

Mark Latham joined Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in 2018 and was elected into the Upper House in 2019, after 11 years with the Labor party, including his role as the Leader of the Opposition from 2003-2005.

He remains a member of One Nation following his ousting as the leader of One Nation NSW.

Last week, Mark Latham’s legal team submitted his defence against Alex Greenwich’s defamation allegations, which argue the independent MP was subject to “threats, repeated jibes, hatred, homophobic comments and contempt and ridicule” following Latham’s controversial tweet.

“Greenwich is an openly gay man who has participated in homosexual sexual activities, material that was set-out in specific or general terms in the primary tweet and is substantially true,” Latham’s defence says.

“Greenwich did not suffer serious harm to his reputation.”

Greenwich’s lawyers claim Latham’s tweet was defamatory, as it suggested the independent member was “not a fit and proper person to be a member of the NSW parliament” because he “engages in disgusting sexual activities”.

Senator Hanson called Latham’s remarks “disgusting” in a video statement at the time of the incident.

“I want you to know that I don’t condone them, and neither do my members of parliament or party associates,” she said.

The post Pauline Hanson sacks Mark Latham as leader of One Nation NSW appeared first on Women's Agenda.

And whilst the Greens new Federal Member Max Chandler-Mather has recently become the champion for renters, and would seemingly be my natural ally, I know that very few, if any, of the Greens demands can be met because of our political system.

Not because any of these solutions are necessarily ‘wrong’ – they’re risky. Far too risky for a government to enact for fear it will alienate not just a large pool of voters but also the donors that fund election campaigns. It’s this political dilemma: take ambitious action but risk losing the next election, which prevents politicians solving our hard problems time and again.

Which is why the crossbencher’s call for a Citizens’ Assembly on the issue is a ground-breaking way to cut through the warring of politics and instead focus on solving the problem.

If you haven’t yet heard of Citizens’ Assemblies (or have a slightly vague idea of what they are), you’re not alone. But we should be learning about them, participating in them and advocating for them. They’re the perfect process for complex decision making where there’s multiple stakeholders involved where compromise and long-term thinking are required; exactly what isn’t available with policy, which has to be almost purely based on how well they’ll poll.

Citizens’ Assemblies take a representative mix of the population, selected by lot, and give them time and access to a range of experts to come up with common-ground solutions, you don’t see the standard oppositional behaviour that we’re so used to in politics.

It’s all well and good for anyone in opposition to say that the government isn’t doing enough but the problem is that politics is – and has to be – about winning and maintaining power. This is a key motivation in all political decisions, and it puts the government’s ability to make tough, complex decisions for our long-term benefit at odds with safely navigating an upcoming election.

The latest proffered solution to the housing crisis coming from the CFMEU for a “super profits tax” of 40% on companies with a turnover of over $100 million, will also likely sit in a pile next to other attempts for change including the ask from the Greens for a national rent freeze.

Bill Shorten’s 2019 election loss (on the back of campaigning for ending negative gearing and reducing the capital gains tax discount) is a perfect example of what can happen when proposing ambitious policies ; you lose. Labor’s ‘Housing Australia Future Fund’, which goes so far below addressing the enormous shortfall of housing in Australia, reflects these learnings with its muted ambition.

The housing crisis isn’t of course the only issue that has people like me and other voters concerned.  Other seemingly intractable issues like climate change, health care and task reform too often continue to languish in the “too hard” basket, highlighting that the political system isn’t capable of addressing long-term challenges facing Australians. 

The key difference with politics and citizens’ assemblies, is that every day people in a citizens’ assembly aren’t there to win a campaign or votes. They’re there to solve a problem and come up with solutions that everyone can get behind.

Many countries have used citizens’ assemblies to tackle big problems, especially ones that politicians can’t agree on or political systems are too inert to try. The most notable have been in Ireland, on abortion law reform, same-sex marriage and drug law reform.

It’s about time we see these adopted more in Australia and the housing crisis is the perfect topic for us to tackle on a national level. We need people from all sides of this issue to be part of creating the solutions otherwise none of us will support it – risky or not.

The post Why the housing crisis is the latest in a string of national challenges that politics can’t tackle. appeared first on Women's Agenda.

As long as our parliament is dominated by a whopping number of male, party-based career politicians with little practical life experience outside of politics, promoting the agenda of parties that have declining membership bases – the real issues that affect women, children and communities will continue to be ignored. 

I’m running as an Independent this election because solving the climate crisis depends on normal everyday women like myself putting ourselves forward to get real power in parliament. But I wasn’t always so confident….   

In the spring of 2021 – my family was camping in Patonga NSW by the Hawkesbury River, when my 10-year-old burst into tears and unleashed the deepest grief. She told me: “I won’t get to grow old, and own a caravan, and travel around Australia like those old people because you adults are ruining the earth. I probably won’t even get to grow up because of the climate crisis”.  

Rough stuff for a parent to hear. But a fair call for a 10-year-old who had lived through major social crises of smoke, bushfires, COVID lockdowns, and floods in her short life.

I did try to reassure my child out of this thinking – and I was shot back as only a 10-year-old can: “You are just talk, don’t try to make me feel better, the climate crisis is real and you can’t talk your way out of it”. Ouch.

I felt devasted at my child’s climate grief and the realisation that the joy I take in nature and in having children, might not be available for them to enjoy with their own children or grandchildren. I’m a lifelong social activist, I worked for the UN for a decade and I have a PhD in Sustainable Futures. But until this pivotal moment, I had never thought of being a politician. Indeed, I grew up in rural NSW and I’d only ever seen conservative, older, white male politicians.

In my family, politicians and power were simultaneously mistrusted, derided and not of my world or the circles I moved in. I didn’t even know I could run as a political candidate until I went to a one-day workshop by Women for Election Australia. It felt like being gifted the handbook to a secret, elite, (boys) club – but if you know the rules, you can run.

My child’s climate grief spurred me into running as a candidate with strong climate, community-and integrity focused commitments. My social and academic background meant I knew how to search for evidence, how to tap into the local issues, plus how to interpret the census data and figure out -who is in my electorate, and what matters to them?

I’ve stepped down from my day job as a university lecturer, and whilst I’m running in a safe seat – every election is winnable. We eat a lot of slow-cooker dinners as I’m campaigning!

More importantly – my children, my nieces and nephews, their school friends, my community – can see that a normal everyday person can be a political candidate. That politics isn’t only for white men, or for elites – and that we have the power to solve the climate crisis for our communities – if only enough of us stand up to be elected.

If you are voting in NSW this election – check if you’ve got an Independent woman standing up for your community and vote for her. It’s one of the most powerful things you can do to solve the climate crisis.

The post We won’t solve the climate crisis until we vote out career politicians appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Check out non-fiction favourites from our team below. And you can also take a look at our fiction list here.

The Most Important Job in the World by Gina Rushton

I’ve long admired Gina Rushton’s excellent reporting on reproductive rights in Australia, so I was so excited to dive into this book. As a mid-20 something woman, I’m so glad that I read this book when I did. It gave my climate-anxiety riddled brain some much needed clarity, as I consider whether parenthood is something I see for myself in the future. Highly recommend for anyone (not just those considering parenthood)!  – Madeline Hislop

Love This For You by Deni Todorovic  

I just finished this excellent book from Deni Todorovic (they/them) who I’ve followed on Instagram (@stylebydeni) for a number of years now. Deni, a LGBTQI+ activist, is such a breath of fresh air. I originally started following them for the fashion, but I’ve stayed for the education, heart and authenticity. This book has all of that, and more, in spades. – Madeline Hislop

How Many More Women by Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida

This is a timely and important book from human rights lawyers Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida, examining how the law silences women. The book goes into examples Women’s Agenda readers would be well familiar with, including a chapter on Amber Heard (whom Robinson successfully represented in the UK, following Johnny Depp’s defamation action against The Sun). The book is powerful and accessible and creates an important guide to understanding how the courts are being used to silence women, in Australia and overseas. I recently spoke to the authors for The Women’s Agenda Podcast, with Yoshida sharing during that conversation thoughtful questions regarding the state of where we’re at: “How many more women need to be raped before things change?” she asked. “How many more women will be sued for defamation before things change? How many more women need to accuse a man of abuse or harassment before we’ll believe her? How many more women have to make accusations before a media organisation publishes a story about this particular person?” – Angela Priestley

BOLD TYPES: How Australia’s First Women Journalists Blazed A Trail

When a book documenting the history of Australia’s best women journalists arrived at the office, how could this not become an instant hit? Patricia Clarke outlines the names to know and remember, highlighting how women have defied the gender barriers to work their way up in a male-dominated profession where so often in newsrooms they face disgusting sexism and harassment, as well as editors, colleagues and readers who aren’t always open to hearing/reading/learning from a woman. Patricia is a trailblazing journalist herself, having started her career in the mid 1950s, and she skillfully researches and writes about the women who’ve pioneered across media, penning stories of Australia’s first female foreign correspondent (Anna Blackwell), the first female war correspondent (Edith Dickenson) and Flora Shaw, who shared the first reports from colonial Australia. Amy Remeikis has penned an excellent introduction to the book, noting how women have and continue to face double standards constantly — “ask the hard questions, but don’t interrupt” etc. -Angela Priestley

Quarterly Essay, Lone Wolf: Albanese and the New Politics by Katharine Murphy

Lone Wolf is an in depth, truly human analysis of Australia’s Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. Through Murphy’s masterful storytelling, she reveals a leader at the forefront of change—a deviser of “strategies of inclusivity”, who won over voters in the 2022 election with progressive reform. – Tarla Lambert

First Nations Food Companion by Damien Coulthard and Rebecca Sullivan

This is the first book I’ve ever read which does justice to the rich food culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. From Bunya nuts to Warrigal greens, this book shares all the myriad ways Australia’s vibrant and delicious native ingredients can be used in easy, accessible and beautiful recipes. – Tarla Lambert

First, Cream the Butter and Sugar by Emelia Jackson

For anyone who bakes for therapy as I do, this book is the perfect companion. It’s packed full of epic recipes on a sliding scale of easy peasy to Masterchef on steroids. DO NOT bypass the chocolate mousse tart. – Tarla Lambert

I’m Glad my Mom Died by Jennette McCurdy

I couldn’t put this memoir down; it was so raw and filled with dark humour. You don’t have to be super familiar with Jeannette to get something out of this since she touches so honestly on the topics of child stardom, eating disorders and the complicated relationship she had with her mom. – Brianna Boecker

Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race by Reni Eddo-Lodge

This book is a powerful statement on the extent of racism that underpins our modern world. While it is confronting and uncomfortable, it is also informative and necessary. Not only does it tackle the importance of an intersectional lens, it challenges the perception that racism in the UK is far less problematic and severe as it is in the US. This can also be applied to Australia. Reni also brilliantly expresses the burden of being a black woman constantly pulled into having discussions of race with white people – a point of which seems so blatantly obvious to many POCs, which makes it all the more relatable. – Allison Ho

The Best We Could by Thi Bui

This is the first graphic/visual novel I have ever picked up as an adult. And it did not disappoint. I often get distracted by graphics, but in this case, it really helped elevate the story. Bui created something so beautiful and honest, and I was an emotional wreck by the end of it. I really resonated with her story, particularly as the daughter of Vietnamese refugees whose escape story is eerily similar. This is a very impactful read, and the way Bui recognises her parents’ sacrifices through her own motherhood journey, makes this book timeless. – Allison Ho

Violent Phenomena, edited and introduced by Kavita Bhanot and Jeremy Tiang

Translation and the craft of literary translation is something I’ve become so obsessed with over the past 12 months. This collection of essays reveals some startling, insightful truths about what it’s like to work as a literary translator as a person of colour. It fundamentally changed my views about so many things – from what good literature means, to colonialism, racism, gender politics and geo-political influences on culture. The book is published by an important printing press, called Tilted Axis, which publishes books translated from Asian languages into English. – Jessie Tu

The Story of Art (without men) by Katy Hessel 

I am always mourning the fact of how little respect women and gender non-conforming artists get compared to men – throughout history, if you’re not a man, you’re just not taken as seriously, or paid as much for your work. Hessel’s book gives the time, effort and respect usually afforded to male artists to the other sexes – chronicling the ‘forgotten women artists’ from centuries ago, to more contemporary times. I found this book immensely powerful and so, so urgent. – Jessie Tu

The post Our favourite non-fiction books from 2022 appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Much time has been spent researching why women are under-represented at all levels of government, but particularly local government. 

However, it’s clear a good place to start would be by removing the stigma around women using the support available to them and their families, like early childhood education and other childcare services.

Sadly, this continues. Let me explain.

Personally, I truly once believed that intentional shaming of “working women” was a thing of the past. That mothers no longer needed to feel guilty for leaving the office to pick up young kids prior to the local childcare centre closing for the evening. And that mothers also could finally call in to say they were working from home with a sick child, without experiencing the rolled eyes of colleagues. I thought that the pandemic surely had put an end to to all that.

Unfortunately, I recently experienced that the shaming continues, after I was “exposed” for claiming $1418.86 in childcare-related expenses for my three children, aged 11, eight and six, to attend after-hours council meetings over six months. 

I was labelled the “most expensive” councillor, despite having only the third highest level of reimbursements recorded. A little different to other workplaces, councillors are indeed allowed to have childcare reimbursed as a part of the Local Government Act, which also covers councillors with family members that have different care needs.  

Maybe I was deemed to have the most newsworthy angle because I was the only female councillor with young children, and therefore the only one who claimed childcare.  

And that’s the really sad part. We want more working women in local government to represent the important interests of this large, growing and hard-working group in society. 

Barriers to accessing early childhood education is one of the reasons women can’t contribute as effectively to the workforce. Often, the issue is that the support mechanisms that should be there for working parents aren’t enough . But it’s a whole other issue when the mechanisms are available — but then weaponised against women.. 

I’m not the only one. Other female councillors have come under scrutiny for being reimbursed for childcare recently. 

Conversations which target women and make them feel bad for accessing support can be further offputting for those thinking about putting themselves forward to serve the community. I knew some women who now feel too scared to claim childcare reimbursements, for the fear of being attacked. That then is limiting their opportunities, and the opportunities of local government to have the best possible representation.

I wasn’t doing anything wrong by seeking reimbursement for childcare. I try to save those costs as much as possible, but sometimes I need them to do the best job I can for the people I am representing. 

I admit I wasn’t surprised when the “costliest councillor” article came out because I’ve spoken to many women councillors who have been in the same boat, but I had hoped to avoid the scrutiny.

If it weren’t for those reimbursements, I would not have been able to do the best job I can for the people I am representing. As the only councillor with young children in council, I feel like I have a different perspective to offer on what it’s like living on the Bass Coast. 

The irony is that Bass Coast Shire Council has been applauded for being progressive in introducing equal parental leave rights for both parents. Bass Coast Shire Council was the first Victorian LGA to introduce 16 weeks of paid parental leave, and one year of paid superannuation for both men and women.  

But I was quickly convinced by other supportive women, alongside Bass Coast Shire Mayor Cr Michael Whelan, to turn the criticism I have experienced into a positive, and encourage discussions around privilege and accessibility in the workforce. 

We recently established the ‘Women Leading Locally Forum’ to support women to become community leaders. Current and former councillors have come together to share their insights and experiences, and discuss the benefits of having more women on council. 

One of the questions posed by the forum was around how to build resilience in the face of unwarranted criticism, because the systems have been created without working mothers’ needs in mind. 

More than that, it is bad for democracy if it is only people who can afford childcare from their own pocket are able to represent their communities. People who have really diverse backgrounds and life experiences all deserve a seat at council because evidence shows that’s how communities get better. 

If the Victorian Government were serious about seeing equal numbers of male and female councillors, they would address this issue by removing the need to report this expense against a councillor.

It may seem like a small thing, but it could make a huge difference to women councillors across Victoria and to those considering running. 

There are so many brilliant, talented women out in our community who have so much to offer. Being a councillor is a challenging and rewarding opportunity. It isn’t easy all the time, but everyone that stands for council is there to make a difference. 

I hope that we can plant a seed that will grow into our community having greater women’s representation because we deserve a seat at the table and shame-free childcare enables us to take that seat.  

The post My local paper ‘exposing’ how much I spend on childcare highlights another barrier for women in local government appeared first on Women's Agenda.

There is no better example of how Australia’s defamation laws enable the rich and powerful to intimidate their critics than Lachlan Murdoch suing Crikey.com over a comment piece concerning Fox News, Donald Trump and the Washington insurrection of January 6 2021.

Crikey says it has published the correspondence between its lawyers and Murdoch’s in order to show how media power is abused in Australia.

The correspondence begins with a “concerns notice” Murdoch sent to Crikey, which is the essential first step in launching an action for defamation. In it, Murdoch claims that the Crikey commentary by Bernard Keane, published on June 29 2022, conveyed 14 meanings that were defamatory of Murdoch.

Murdoch’s allegation and Crikey’s defence

According to Murdoch’s claims, Keane’s piece alleges that Lachlan Murdoch illegally conspired with Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 US presidential election result and incite an armed mob to march on the Capitol to prevent the result from being confirmed.

Crikey has responded by disputing that these meanings are conveyed, saying they are “contrived and do not arise”. Crikey also argues that whatever it published could not possibly have done serious harm to Lachlan Murdoch’s reputation.

In order to get an action for defamation off the ground, Murdoch, the plaintiff in this case, has to satisfy the court that serious reputational harm has been done. The court may well decide this is the case.

Crikey says that given what much bigger media companies such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and the ABC (American Broadcasting Company) have already published about Murdoch’s Fox News and its propagation of the “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen, what Crikey has published cannot further harm Murdoch’s reputation.

US vs Australian defamation protections

This brings us to the first way Australia’s defamation laws facilitate intimidatory action by the rich and powerful.

Since those two big American newspapers have published similar material to that published by Crikey, the question naturally arises: why has Lachlan Murdoch not sued them? The answer is that in the United States, there is a “public figure” defence to defamation.

In the US, Lachlan Murdoch would easily qualify as a public figure, being executive chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation. If he sued there, he would have to prove malice on the part of the newspapers. That means he would have to prove that the newspapers lied or were recklessly indifferent to the truth.

No such defence is available to the media in Australia, despite decades of intermittent campaigning by the media that it is needed. The reasons these efforts have gone nowhere are twofold.

First, Australian politicians are among the most avid users of defamation laws, and it would be unrealistic to expect they would change this convenient state of affairs. This has been illustrated recently by the successful defamation action taken by the former deputy premier of NSW, John Barilaro, against an online satirist, Jordan Shanks, aka friendlyjordies.

Second, the tradition of accountability in public life is weak in Australia and the tradition of secrecy is strong, as vividly demonstrated by Scott Morrison’s behaviour in the affair of the multiple portfolios.

Another major factor in the chilling effect that the Australian defamation laws exert on the media is the extravagant damages the courts have awarded to plaintiffs that sue media companies, as well as the high cost of litigation. This has caused large media companies to settle cases even when they had an arguable prospect of defending themselves.

A recent example was when the biography of the AFL player Eddie Betts was published, confirming what had happened at the now notorious training camp held by the Adelaide Crows in 2018. At the camp, Betts alleged he was targeted, abused and the camp “misused personal and sensitive information.”

However, when The Age broke the story initially, it was sued by the company that ran the camp. The newspaper issued an apology, although it did not admit the story was wrong.

The Age said its parent company, Nine Entertainment, had made a “business decision” to settle the case. In other words, it did not want to risk the costs and damages involved in contesting the suit.

Liabilities for online publication

A third main factor is the failure of the Morrison administration to bring to finality stage two of the defamation law reforms, which concern the liabilities and defences for online publication.

Currently, anyone who publishes a website or a blog is liable for the comments made there by third parties. Continuously moderating comment streams for potentially defamatory material is onerous and expensive at a time when media organisations have far fewer resources than they did in the pre-digital age.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that Lachlan Murdoch feels he can use his immense wealth and power to intimidate and silence a relatively small outfit like Crikey.com. Behind him stand corporations with a market capitalisation of billions. Crikey says its company, Private Media, is valued at less than $20 million.

Murdoch’s demands

Murdoch wants Crikey to take down the story and issue an apology. In pursuit of his case, he has filed suit in the Federal Court.

In defiance of Murdoch’s claim, Crikey has published his 2014 oration at the State Library of Victoria named in honour of his grandfather, Sir Keith Murdoch, as part of its publishing of the legal correspondence:

Censorship should be resisted in all its insidious forms. We should be vigilant of the gradual erosion of our freedom to know, to be informed and make reasoned decisions in our society and in our democracy. We must all take notice and, like Sir Keith, have the courage to act when those freedoms are threatened.

Quite.

Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Murdoch v Crikey highlights how Australia’s defamation laws protect the rich and powerful appeared first on Women's Agenda.