Women have fought hard to be recognised as farmers. There’s still more work to be done | The Conversation

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Women’s labour has long been central to the success of Australian farming. But farming itself is still largely seen as a “masculine” job. That’s why the Australian women in agriculture movement has fought hard to change this perception.

Our research has reviewed the story and impacts of this movement over the past 40 years.

There have been some big wins for women – particularly in terms of cultural recognition. But they still do not have equal access to the economic rewards of farming.

In the 1990s, rural women started meeting and formulating agendas for change at what were known as the “Women on Farm Gatherings”.

In 1994, the movement was successful in challenging the existing legal status of women on farms as a “sleeping partner, non-productive”.

This impacted women’s position in divorce and injury settlements, impinging on their claims that they were contributors to the farm business and deserved recognition as such.

The movement was making gains in disrupting the masculine idea of what it was to be a farmer. But it also faced backlash.

Like many Australian women’s movements, the momentum of the rural women’s movement stalled from the late 1990s onward.

Farmers were encouraged to “get big or get out” to maintain farm viability. They were also encouraged to become more professional and entrepreneurial.

Policies targeted at women in agriculture and women in rural areas focused on tapping into rural women’s potential to make farms professional and less reliant on government support.

This included building skills related to the farm office. These programs helped to legitimise the policy of economic restructuring, as it was seen to be empowering for women.

These programs did little to improve women’s access to the economic rewards of agriculture. Key politicians still appeared to see women as secondary farmers.

For example, in 2013, then federal agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce said agriculture would “fall flat on its face without the prominent and incredible role that women play”, but then described that role as “basically as the assistant farm labourer, with the partner or with the husband”.

Women’s on and off-farm labour is crucial for family farm viability in Australia, but they still do not share equally in the economic rewards of farming.

The flexibility and underpayment of family labour is arguably one of the key reasons Australian farming remains largely in family rather than corporate hands.

This does not recognise women as independent farmers in their own right. It also reinforces and normalises women’s contribution to agriculture and rural communities as underpaid or unpaid.

Source: Women have fought hard to be recognised as farmers. There’s still more work to be done

If you’re pregnant, do you have to tell your boss? And what are the rules for employers? | The Conversation

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

A Sydney warehouse worker fired by text message within two weeks of telling her employer she was pregnant has won her job back, along with A$15,000 in backpay.

The recent Fair Work Commission ruling about an Adecco contractor working at an Amazon warehouse highlights how employers and employees can interpret the rules on pregnancy and workplace discrimination very differently – sometimes leading to disputes.

Whether you’re newly pregnant or you’re a boss trying to look after your staff, these are the legal rights and obligations you need to know about.

I’m pregnant and applying for work. Do I have to mention it?

No, you don’t. As the Sex Discrimination Act makes clear, an employer can’t ask you about it either.

Even indirect questions – “Are you planning to have a baby in the future?” – are not allowed.

I’ve found out I’m pregnant. Do I have to tell my boss?

No. When you tell them will depend on your job, your pregnancy and your preferences.

I’ve had fewer opportunities since telling work I’m pregnant. Is that allowed?

Under the law, employees can’t be discriminated against because they’re pregnant.

But discrimination often isn’t as obvious as being fired or demoted.

Can I ask for flexible work?

Yes – and that’s new.

Since June 2023, pregnant women have been able to ask for flexible work arrangements, after an update to the Fair Work Act.

Can I ask for my job to be modified?

Yes, you can ask for a “safe job” or “no safe job leave”. That’s true for casual workers too.

A pregnant employee who’s generally fit for work, but can provide evidence that they can’t do their current role because of illness, risk to their pregnancy or hazards at work can ask to be transferred to a “safe job”.

The challenge for employers – especially smaller businesses

There are lots of good employers wanting to do the right thing. But especially for smaller businesses without a human resources department, it isn’t easy.

My employee’s told me they’re pregnant. Do I have to do anything now?

The Sex Discrimination Act now contains an obligation known as a “positive duty”. It came into force in late 2022.

It means employers need to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination – including discrimination because of pregnancy.

What if I’m worried my worker can’t safely do the job while pregnant?

If you’re an employer, even if you have genuine safety concerns you can’t unilaterally decide a pregnant worker can’t do their job.

Many jobs can be adjusted for pregnancy. Employers need to work with their employees to figure out the best solutions.

Source: If you’re pregnant, do you have to tell your boss? And what are the rules for employers?

Woman loses case against her employer over transgender toilet policy  | Sky News | UK

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

An engineer who took aerospace giant Leonardo UK to an employment tribunal for having to share women’s toilets with transgender colleagues has lost a discrimination claim.

Maria Kelly alleged harassment related to sex, direct sex discrimination and indirect sex discrimination.

Ms Kelly took action after lodging a formal grievance with the company.

The tribunal was heard in Edinburgh in October, but all of her claims have now been dismissed by employment judge Michelle Sutherland.

Ms Kelly said she believes the outcome “fundamentally misunderstands both the law and my case”, as she announced plans to appeal.

Maya Forstater, chief executive of charity Sex Matters, said: “This judgment interprets the law as transactivists would wish it to be, and is incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland in several places.

“It is incredible that even after the highest court in the land has ruled that the law recognises men and women in terms of biological sex, there are lower courts still trying to see the world in terms of gender identity.”

Source: Woman loses case against her employer over transgender toilet policy

Men earn nearly $10,000 more than women in bonuses and overtime pay, fuelling the gender pay gap: new data

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Men are earning on average A$9,753 more than women each year in the form of performance bonuses, allowances and overtime pay.

That’s according to the latest gender pay gap data released on Thursday by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. It covers more than 8,000 private companies for 2024–25, employing more than 5.4 million workers across Australia.

The overall gender pay gap fell to 21.1%, compared to 21.8% in 2023–24. But the gap in discretionary pay makes up a big chunk of the total gender pay gap of $28,356.

The share of all parental leave being taken by men grew to 20% in 2024-25, a rise of three percentage points from the year before.

Source: Men earn nearly $10,000 more than women in bonuses and overtime pay, fuelling the gender pay gap: new data

President Donald Trump Tells Female Reporter ‘Quiet, Piggy’ – YouTube

OHCHR | Call for input to the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls to the 62nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Violence against mothers

Purpose: The Special Rapporteur seeks to receive input to examine the forms and manifestations of violence experienced by women and girls because of their status as mothers, including where that status intersects with other grounds. It will be the first report on this subject to the UN Human Rights Council, presented at its 62nd session.

Input/comments may be sent by e-mail. They must be received by 6 February 2026 18:00 (Geneva time).

Source: OHCHR | Call for input to the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls to the 62nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Violence against mothers

Unpaid ‘women’s work’ is worth $427 billion, new research shows. See how much your unpaid labour is worth | The Conversation

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

All those thousands of hours that Australians put towards unpaid household work and care – cooking, cleaning and caring for family members – are an essential thread that keeps our economy stitched together.

But they’re not recognised in official economic statistics.

My new research puts a dollar value on what all this unpaid labour is worth to the economy: about A$688 billion. That’s equivalent to around one-third of gross domestic product – and is mostly contributed by women.

In other words, women and men are contributing roughly equal labour effort to our economy. But it’s not reflected in the way we measure our economy, or in the gender gaps that persist in pay, wealth, assets and control over resources.

The invisibility and under-recognition of “women’s work” – that is, the work that society assigns to women – is not just a matter of numbers.

It’s an erasure and diminishing of the value of women’s capabilities and contributions to our economy.

Source: Unpaid ‘women’s work’ is worth $427 billion, new research shows. See how much your unpaid labour is worth

California Drivers Sue Uber, Lyft Alleging Gender Discrimination | The Epoch Times

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Male drivers affiliated with ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft filed lawsuits against the businesses in California, accusing them of enforcing gender discrimination through programs that allow women to opt for female drivers.

The class action complaint against Uber was filed on Nov. 3 at the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.

The lawsuit took issue with Uber’s “Women Preferences” set of features announced for the U.S. market in July.
Initially, the Women Preferences option was introduced in Saudi Arabia in 2019, which was “overwhelmingly positive,” the company said, adding that the option has since been expanded to 40 nations.
[Ed: Another example of sex discrimination laws being used to reduce women’s safety and opportunities rather than for their protection as originally intended.]

Source: California Drivers Sue Uber, Lyft Alleging Gender Discrimination | The Epoch Times

Setting the record straight: The political erasure of our feminist lineage | AAWAA

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Women’s rights organisations advocating for sex-based protections and rights from a second-wave feminist tradition have been systematically mischaracterised in public discourse as ‘right-wing’, ‘reactionary’, ‘regressive’, or sometimes even ‘far-right’ or ‘extremist’. These labels are not merely inaccurate: they represent a form of political erasure of women’s organising that obscures the feminist lineage of our advocacy and misrepresents the nature of our concerns and advocacy.

The majority of women in feminist, women’s rights organisations such as AAWAA are rooted in second-wave feminism and the women’s liberation traditions that emerged from progressive movements of the late 1960s and the 1970s. Our advocacy is grounded in materialist feminist analysis: we recognise sex as a biological fact with material consequences for females living under patriarchy.​

Historically, this analysis has driven campaigns against prostitution, sex trafficking, male violence against women and girls, surrogacy, pornography, sexualised advertising, misogyny, everyday sexism, and the denial of abortion rights — amongst other things. These we recognise as forms of systemic exploitation of women’s bodies and reproductive capacity: not matters of individual ‘choice’, but structures and mechanisms that enable and support male violence against women and that perpetuate our oppression as a sex class.​

These positions were once widely recognised as core feminist positions. They emerge from the understanding that women exist firstly as a sex class before we exist as individuals or within any other class that includes the category of males. And they emerge from the knowledge that structures that commodify women’s bodies — whether through prostitution, surrogacy, or pornography — license prejudice against and the exploitation of women and girls at both the population and individual levels.​

Women advocating for feminist stances on sex-based protections and rights are now routinely characterised as ‘right-wing’, ‘reactionary’, ‘regressive’, ‘extremist’, or aligned with political movements opposed to equality and human rights. These characterisations obscure the feminist lineage of our advocacy and misrepresent the nature of our concerns.​

Women who raise concerns about policies that create conflicts between sex and gender identity, or that treat the commodification of women’s bodies as ’empowering’, should not be dismissed as bigots, extremists, hateful, or holders of reactionary politics. ​

Source: Setting the record straight: The political erasure of our feminist lineage

Flexible working arrangements: Experts warn bosses after Westpac loses Fair Work Commission case | SMH

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Westpac’s loss at the Fair Work Commission over a staff member’s request to work from home permanently is a warning to bosses that they must be prepared to justify why they require certain workers to come into the office, experts say.

This week, the Fair Work Commission found in favour of an employee from Westpac’s mortgage operations team who challenged the bank after it shot down her request to work from home and insisted she report to the office at least two days a week.

Karlene Chandler, who has worked for Westpac for more than 20 years, had moved with her family to Wilton, about 80 kilometres south-west of Sydney’s CBD, in 2021, to be closer to the private school her two six-year-old children attended.

Chandler wanted the working conditions so she could make school drop-offs for her children, noting that it took roughly two hours to travel from the school to a Westpac office in either Kogarah or Parramatta.

She had been approved for flexible work conditions but in January, Westpac reversed this, requiring her to comply with the company policy of working at least two days per week in an office.

Finance Sector Union national secretary Julia Angrisano said working from home “is a right, not a privilege” and that the decision “paves the way for workers who have caring responsibilities to secure work from home rights”.

Sam Nottle, principal lawyer at Jewell Hancock employment lawyers, said the Westpac decision should remind companies that they were legally obliged to respond to requests for flexible working arrangements within 21 days and provide grounds for refusing requests.

“If an employee has worked very well from home in the past, you do have to grapple with and address the business grounds on which you’re refusing the request,” Nottle said. “Westpac didn’t do that in this instance,” he said.

Source: Flexible working arrangements: Experts warn bosses after Westpac loses Fair Work Commission case