Fair Agenda

This election is a critical opportunity to put our movement's priority issues in front of candidates, demonstrate widespread public mandate for action, and secure their commitments to act. 

In our most recent survey, Fair Agenda members told us they wanted to see action on sexual and domestic violence, healthcare and reproductive rights, care work, and support for those doing it tough. 

That’s why we’ve asked candidates across the country to commit to concrete action in these areas by taking Fair Agenda’s Pledge for a fair and gender equal future. Now, you and other voters can see where your local candidates stand—and either thank them for taking the pledge or call on them to step up their commitments.

Just head to https://fairandequalpledge.org/, enter your address and email, and you’ll see who’s standing in your electorate and whether they’ve signed on to the Pledge.

This election will shape the policies that impact our safety, economic security and agency for years to come. From reproductive care, to economic support for parents and carers, to the systems that should keep women safe — we need leaders who will act.

To ensure leaders know what action to take, Fair Agenda has worked with peak bodies, policy experts, service providers and advocates to identify specific policy changes candidates can make if elected. Through the Pledge we’ve asked every candidate if they’ll commit to support these changes.

Visit our election website displaying these commitments to help you and other voters make informed choices.

Authorised by Renee Carr, Fair Agenda, 36-38 Gipps St Collingwood VIC 3066

Hear from three extraordinary national leaders:

• Sandra Creamer AM is an Adjunct Professor of Public Health at the University of Queensland. She is a proud Waanyi/Kalkadoon woman, a lawyer, and a national leader on domestic violence and women's health issues. With decades of lived and professional experience advocating for the health, safety, and rights of First Nations women, she is currently the CEO of the Australian Women's Health Alliance and chairs the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council, contributing to the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032.
  
  
• Yumi Lee is a powerful voice for those often excluded from conversations on gender-based violence. As CEO of the Older Women’s Network NSW, she drives change on issues impacting older women, including violence perpetrated in aged care, housing insecurity, and homelessness. Yumi was appointed to the Federal Attorney-General’s Lived-Experience Expert Advisory Group on Sexual Violence and was awarded the NSW Women’s Legal Service Bright Sparks Award for Advocacy and Reform.
  
  
• Evie Clayton is a trailblazing survivor advocate from Queensland, driving urgent reforms to support victim-survivors. A survivor of domestic and sexual violence with a background in frontline services, Evie campaigns for policy change grounded in the real needs of victim-survivors. Her powerful advocacy ensures survivor voices are heard by decision-makers and the public.

At this event, you’ll:

• Hear from powerful speakers on what real action on domestic violence, women’s health and safety looks like.
• Hear about the reform agenda laid out in Fair Agenda's Pledge for a Fair and Gender Equal Future — and why your voice will be crucial in holding the next parliament to account.
• See which political candidates have committed to action to address these issues— and which haven’t.
• Get equipped to take action and help drive change in the first 100 days of the new parliament.

Let’s ensure every candidate knows: we expect real action and are ready to fight for it.

Today Education Minister Jason Clare has introduced legislation to create a National Student Ombudsman - enacting the first-part of the nation-wide Action Plan Addressing Gender-Based Violence In Higher Education.

Leading student safety advocates End Rape on Campus Australia, The STOP Campaign and Fair Agenda marked this milestone from the gallery; and have praised the reform as an important step.

Sharna Bremner, Founder & Director, End Rape on Campus Australia said: 

“For too long rape survivors have been abandoned and harmed by their universities; and failed again by the systems that were supposed to hold them accountable. From next year higher education students will finally have a way to file a complaint about their university’s harmful response to their report of sexual violence. Most importantly, those complaints will now actually be investigated, and there will be consequences for universities and residences who put student safety at risk.”

Camille Schloeffel, Founder & Chair The STOP Campaign added:

“Victim-survivors have been calling out for change for years - dealing with universities and residences that haven’t been willing to do what’s needed to support student safety, or even provide basic adjustments to support victim-survivors to continue their education. We shouldn’t have had to share the horrors of what we experienced to get change. But we’re so relieved that Minister Clare has listened, and acted quickly.”

Renee Carr, Executive Director of Fair Agenda said: 

“Universities have been failing victim-survivors of rape for too long. For years survivors, students and advocates have been calling for oversight, transparency and accountability in this space - and we’re thrilled that we have an Action Plan to deliver that. 

The creation of the National Student Ombudsman is a critical piece of that solution. When combined with strong legislated standards through the upcoming National Code, these reforms will finally deliver safer universities.”

The groups credited this reform to the strength and perseverance of victim-survivors who have spoken out about university and residence’s harmful actions over many years.

The National Student Ombudsman is set to commence operations in February 2025. The associated National Code legislation is in development, and advocates hope that a strong model will be introduced before the end of this year, and supported across the parliament. 

Federal parliamentarians will today debate the creation of an “Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission”, with advocates warning the model proposed isn’t strong enough to realise the change needed. 

Fair Agenda, the Australian Democracy Network and Transparency International Australia have all voiced concerns that the restriction of the enforcement body’s power to recommend sanctions in cases of serious parliamentarian misconduct will undermine its ability to meaningfully improve parliamentary safety and standards.

Quotes attributable to Renee Carr, Executive Director of gender equity movement Fair Agenda: 

“Australians want our politicians to be held to higher standards of behaviour. We reasonably expect any misconduct by parliamentarians to be addressed by a strong, independent body with the power to, at the very least, recommend appropriate consequences. Instead, in cases of serious parliamentarian misconduct, this proposal will take the question of sanctions from the independent body, and hand it back to someone’s peers in the parliament.”

"We need a parliamentary standards system that ensures matters of misconduct are brought above the politics of the day. This requires independent recommendations on appropriate sanctions.”

"If a parliamentarian is engaging in misconduct; the public deserves to know what our independent standards enforcement body thinks is an appropriate response; and whether the parliament follows that advice. That is what has just been legislated in Victoria. It's beyond disappointing to see the federal parliament introducing a weaker model, when it is supposed to be setting the standard.”

Crossbench members in both chambers will introduce amendments to strengthen the proposed IPSC model, by requiring the IPSC to recommend appropriate sanctions in cases of serious parliamentarian misconduct; and requiring the Privileges Committee to report its reasons if it departs from these recommendations. Amendments will be proposed by Andrew Wilkie MP in the Lower House and Senator Larissa Waters in the Senate. 

Lines attributable to Andrew Wilkie MP, Independent Member for Clark and member of the Privileges Committee, says:

“The Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission bill goes some way to addressing the problems that were raised in the Set the Standard Report.”

“But there is one glaring omission. That is where a matter involves a ‘serious offence’, the power to impose sanctions is taken away from the IPSC and given to the Privileges Committee. This flies in the face of the Set the Standard recommendation for a fair, independent, confidential and transparent complaints processing mechanism which will hold parliamentarians to account for poor behaviour.

“I plan on moving an amendment to remedy the Government’s Bill. My amendment enables the IPSC to include recommendations for any sanctions in its report to the Privileges Committee. Moreover, should the Privileges Committee choose to deviate from the recommendations of the IPSC, it must table its reasons for doing so when it reports its decision.”

Lines attributable to Greens leader in the Senate and spokesperson on Women, Larissa Waters, who also serves as a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce:  

"The Greens share advocate’s concerns that the suggested MP sanctions are far weaker and less transparent than we would have liked.

“The Greens pushed for stronger sanctions, including higher fines for MPs and more consequences for Ministers when there is an adverse finding.

“The Greens will move amendments to the Bill to give the IPSC power to suggest sanctions, as suggested by Jenkins, and if Privileges depart from that suggestion, table an explanation as to why. 

“Australians need to trust that their elected officials will be held responsible if they misbehave, and a strong and transparent process is needed for that confidence.”

Other members of the crossbench have also expressed their support for a stronger IPSC model.

Lines attributable to Kylea Tink MP - Independent Member for North Sydney, and member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards said:

“The Commission is not as strong as it could or should be. We know self-regulation doesn’t work – in any sector. Placing the Privileges Committee in charge of sanctioning MPs found to have significantly breached the standards is like asking arsonists to put out their own fires and means there is no guarantee that disciplinary actions will be impactful.”

“As with debate around other new integrity measures – including the National Anti-Corruption Commission  – we must have a process and consequences that hold people to account and offer an appropriate level of transparency.”

“Importantly, we must also acknowledge that, as a democracy, we are not breaking new ground here. In fact Australia is behind a number of other parliaments, including the UK, and for this reason I think we should be stepping into this boldly. Australians expect it and it’s time our parliament met those expectations.”

Lidia Thorpe, Independent Senator for Victoria:

"This draft legislation falls short of the Set the Standard report recommendations.The IPSC must be able to make sanction recommendations, and if the committee decides not to follow them, they should explain why. We can't have politicians policing one another and deciding on their own penalties without transparency or accountability."

"The Privileges Committee is government controlled and dominated by Labor and Coalition politicians. Everyone on it is white and most are blokes. When we're talking about serious misconduct, often rooted in misogyny and racism, we can't blindly trust a political committee to decide on sanctions with no transparency. It's a joke. This is the reason we needed an independent IPSC in the first place."

"I support the amendments proposed by the crossbench in both Houses and I'll be introducing further amendments to strengthen the ability of the IPSC to tackle misconduct."

Zoe Daniel, community Independent Member for Goldstein says: 

“Kate Jenkins’ report was called Set the Standard for a very good reason. Because that’s what the horrifying accounts of workplace culture in Parliament House demanded; that we should lead the way and our workplaces should be role models for employers everywhere.”

“If we are to win the trust of the community in general and women in particular parliament should legislate the recommendations for transparency and accountability in the Jenkins report in full.”

Helen Haines, Federal Independent Member for Indi says:

“There has been longstanding acceptance of unethical and toxic behaviours in Parliament that would not be tolerated in other workplaces or settings. It has eroded public faith in Parliament and our democracy and I am glad we will have an independent commission to address this. 

“We must ensure the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission and the Privileges Committee operate with transparency if we want to build trust with people who work here and with the public. 

The Bill as currently drafted means serious findings could be made about an MP, but they could face no sanction and the public could never know. I will support amendments to bring more transparency to this process.” 

Women’s safety advocates have expressed disappointment and despair at the government’s decision not to properly fund domestic, family and sexual violence services again in this budget.

After last night’s budget, specialist domestic and family violence services, sexual assault services, legal assistance services, perpetrator intervention services are all still not adequately funded to meet demand.

The groups welcomed investment in the Leaving Violence Program, accommodation, and structural reforms - but asserted that to improve women’s safety and freedom, governments desperately need to remove barriers to frontline service access. 

Quote from Renee Carr, Executive Director, Fair Agenda:

“When we’re talking about improving women’s safety - we have to ask, if a woman is reaching out to a service for support to escape domestic violence, or to recover sexual assault - can she actually get help? Right now the answer is frequently no. This budget doesn’t change that.” 

“We talk about a cost of living crisis. Women are being murdered every week - how are the services that support our safety and freedom not at the core of this budget?” 

Quote from Kathleen Maltzahn, Deputy Chair, National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence (NASASV):

“We can’t ensure women are safe and free if governments don’t take serious action on sexual violence, both within family violence and separate from it. There is little in this budget to suggest the federal government is willing to do this with the urgency needed. 

NASASV welcomes the government’s reiteration of its investment in campus-related sexual violence responses and in tackling sexually explicit deep-fakes. 

However, right now, sexual assault survivors can’t even be sure of getting access to counselling from a specialist service. The public focus on sexual violence is causing a spike in survivors contacting specialist sexual assault services, and we can expect that this will happen again when the ALRC inquiry starts in earnest. However, this budget does nothing to make sure survivors reaching out for help don’t get stuck on a waiting list.”

Quote from Tania Farha, CEO of Safe and Equal:

“With at least 28 women murdered in Australia already this year, the scope and scale of the family violence crisis in this country calls for bold, enduring and coordination action from the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing in this budget.

“While we welcome increases to homelessness funding and the extension of initiatives like the Leaving Violence Program, it’s unclear how any of this funding will make it to specialist family violence services, who desperately need more dedicated and sustained funding.

“Family and gender-based violence is complex - and addressing it requires a robust, systemic and thoughtful response. The National Plan has set out an ambitious goal - but with piecemeal funding like this, we will never create the positive change needed to bolster and retain our critical workforce and protect victim survivors and prevent further harm. “

Quote from National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum CEO Kerry Staines:

“While we are grateful for the $8.6million injection to support pay parity for the FVPLS sector and welcome the support, our continued calls to adequately resource our sector to provide the coverage needed to meet the needs of our communities leaves us in a position where we still have unmet need and services too stretched to meet the need,” 

“We understand that the National Legal Assistance Partnership (NLAP) Review is due to be released next month and call for it to be made available to us immediately, with the view to commencing conversations to discuss the future of the FVPLS sector,” 

“We remain steadfast in our commitment to championing the rights and needs of the FVPLS sector.” 

Quote from Women’s Legal Services Australia Chair Elena Rosenman: 

"The very modest investment in community legal centres for indexation and wages in the Budget does not cover legal assistance programs dedicated to women affected by gender-based violence.

“This Budget means many women’s legal services will have to start planning to reduce services to women experiencing gender-based violence. This includes legal assistance for women separating from violent partners, specialist Domestic Violence Units, Health Justice Partnerships and sexual harassment legal services.

We are deeply concerned that the Albanese Government has completely overlooked the critical work of women’s legal services. We are already forced to turn away over 52,000 women every year due to lack of adequate resources.

If we are asking Australian women to trust that the system will be there for them when they flee a violent relationship, we must ensure they can access the trauma-informed, integrated legal services they need.”

Quote from Phillip Ripper, CEO of No To Violence:

“In recent weeks the Prime Minister and Attorney-General have both emphasised the crucial need to address men’s use of family violence, a number of new initiatives in the Budget did highlight the need to end men’s use of violence, but we need these to be co-ordinated to ensure maximum impact. And we were disappointed by the lack of investment in front line services working with men to change their behaviour.”

Quote from Diana Piantedosi, Director of Policy Advocacy and Community Engagement, Women with Disabilities Victoria:

“While we appreciate the permanent continuation of the ‘Leaving Violence Program’ and the targeted allocation of $1 billion for crisis and transitional accommodation, this budget leaves significant gaps in addressing the needs of women with disabilities. The ‘Leaving Violence Program’ offers up to $5,000 of financial support to victim-survivors but fails to account for the immediate requirements of women with disabilities, like specialised equipment.

Similarly, while we welcome the investment of $1 billion to the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, there is a lack of attention to accessible housing for women with disabilities who are disproportionately impacted by family violence. This oversight fails to address the intersecting barriers women with disabilities face in establishing a life free from violence.

The budget announced $1.3 million to establish an independent expert panel to advise the Government on approaches to prevention and ending the cycle of violence. Women with disabilities should be at the centre of and play a lead role in designing prevention initiatives such as this, and the sector must be properly resourced for accessible violence response.”

Quote from Dr Adele Murdolo, CEO of Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health:

“The investment into the primary prevention of violence against women and children is very thin in this budget. The National Plan aims to eliminate gendered violence in a generation, and this won't be achieved without a robust national investment into prevention.The community is ready for change. Specialist primary prevention agencies need vital funding to bring about the systemic and cultural change that is needed to protect women from continuing gendered violence.” 

Background Information on funding need:

Specialist sexual violence trauma counselling services aren’t properly funded by governments. That means there are dire waiting lists around the country, and many victim-survivors have to wait months. The ALRC process is expected to increase demand, but this budget provided no new investment in these services, this means 1800 RESPECT will continue to encourage calls, but only be able to direct victim-survivors to services with months long waiting lists. NASASV has been calling for $6.7 million for this year and $27.8m over the forward estimates to address service deserts in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
NASASV was also calling for $2.7 million this year and $23.8 over three years for a national pilot for specialist sexual assault services to help increase schools’ capacity to delvery consent and sexual violence components of the respectful relationships curriculum in up to 480 schools across Australia.

Specialist domestic and family violence services are not funded to meet demand for their vital case management services.

Family violence prevention legal services can’t reach all the families in need of their critical specialist services. This budget delivered important investment in pay parity for FVPLS service providers, which is a welcome acknowledgement of their specialist skill. However, they needed $60 million extra core funding to address need across their services. This budget only provides $8 million, most of which is expected to go towards achieving pay parity, rather than increasing service capacity.

Women’s legal services across Australia provide women with access to legal advice and representation services in relation to family violence orders, family law, child protection, and victims of crime compensation. They’ have already been forced to turn away an estimated 52,000 women every year because governments don’t fund them to meet demand. The Federal Budget includes a very modest investment in community legal centres for indexation and wages but this does not include legal assistance programs dedicated to women affected by gender-based violence. 

On perpetrator interventions No to Violence, the largest peak body for organisations working to stop men’s use of family violence, says we need an over-arching national perpetration strategy to ensure a co-ordinated national approach to ending men’s use of family violence to keep women, children and communities safer. That means appropriately funding the sector to reflect the real cost of delivering services.

On migrant and refugee women: It is heartening that the Leaving Violence program is accessible to all women, without discrimination on the basis of visa. It is also great to see continuing specialised support for women on temporary visas who are escaping violence. However, there remains much to be done to ensure that migrant and refugee women have the same protections from gendered violence as the rest of the community. The many systemic barriers to safety and equality remain, including a visa system that makes women dependent on their sponsors and spouses, and therefore more vulnerable to all forms of gendered violence. Many migrant and refugee women remain locked out of much-needed housing and welfare support and childcare subsidies. Australia’s domestic and family violence response systems are not equally accessible to all those who need them, and they remain largely monolingual and ill-equipped to provide a culturally safe response. Investment is needed to remove the discrimination that is embedded within our health and welfare systems, and to specifically tailor the domestic and family violence response system to address a wider range of needs.

Join the call for proper funding of services at https://www.fairagenda.org/fund_womens_safety