Emma and Megan unpack the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 – a framework that criminalises organisational membership based on a vague "unacceptable risk" standard, without procedural fairness, and with a 72-hour consultation window. They examine the constitutional vulnerabilities: the absence of evidence that organisational criminalisation is necessary, the deliberate removal of procedural safeguards, the risk of retrospective criminalisation for lawful conduct, and the chilling effect on women's political advocacy. This is what happens when serious legislation meets broken process.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

AAWAA's Christmas Wrap for 2025: Emma hosts Martine, Luci, and Suzi as they look back on a transformative year for AAWAA. They discuss coordinated national campaigns on sex self-ID and surrogacy prohibition, groundbreaking UN submissions on women's human rights, the 2025 federal election push to restore sex-based protections, international momentum against surrogacy, how we've built genuine cross-state collaboration on policy and strategy, and what it means to organise as feminists across Australia. Serious, strategic and upbeat – this is how to build a real movement.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

On 18 December, feminist organisations attended an ALRC roundtable on surrogacy law reform – and witnessed an independent review apparently structurally compromised. Emma and Amber unpack the governance failures: how the ALRC deflected legal questions about abolition, moved process concerns into private emails, conflated having women with representing women's interests, curated 'lived experience' to exclude voices that oppose surrogacy, and set a submission deadline the day after the roundtable. We discuss what the ALRC must do to retain credibility – and why it matters.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

Emma and Amber discuss the Australian Law Reform Commission's review of surrogacy laws, examining why the roundtable with feminist organisations is scheduled for 18 December—one day before the submission deadline for feedback on its discussion paper—and why this timing exposes deeper governance failures. They unpack the advisory committee's structural conflicts of interest, the lack of early consultation with abolitionist women's organisations, and how the review breaches CEDAW compliance obligations. Most critically, they explain why AAWAA is attending despite these failures: to place governance concerns formally on the record and refuse to negotiate away the principle that surrogacy must be abolished. Because the integrity of law reform processes matters as much as the policy content itself.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

In this episode, Emma is joined by Lucy and Liv to discuss their formal submission to the statutory review of sexual consent laws. In 2021, NSW introduced landmark "affirmative consent" reforms. But four years on, are they actually delivering justice for women? The team unpacks why the current legal definition of consent—"free and voluntary agreement"—is fundamentally flawed in a patriarchy. The discussion explores how the law fails to recognise the reality of coercive control, why the "reasonable steps" test still allows men to negotiate away a woman's "no," and why true affirmative consent requires flipping the presumption of male sexual access.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

Emma and Liv expose why consultation alone cannot satisfy Australia's obligations under CEDAW. Governments across Australia are treating consultation as political cover for decisions already made—but CEDAW demands something far more rigorous: mandatory impact assessment. They break down what the Convention actually requires (Articles 2, 3, 5, and 7), explain how General Recommendation No. 28 shifts the focus from process to results, and document the systematic failures in NSW, Western Australia, and Queensland where women were excluded and impact assessment never occurred. Most critically, they outline a four-step legislative framework—from legislated impact statements to independent oversight—that would restore women to the centre of policy affecting our sex-based protections and rights. Because governments can no longer vote claiming ignorance once impact is published.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

In this episode of the Women's Advocate, Emma and Megan discuss the ABC’s relationship with ACON, the LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation behind the Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI). Following the National Press Club address, they explore ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks’s responses—both publicly and in follow-up questioning—on governance, editorial independence, transparency, and the influence of advocacy relationships on media coverage. The conversation covers recent public scrutiny, gaps in ABC reporting acknowledged by its own Media Watch program, and why advocates are calling for an independent parliamentary audit of the ABC–ACON connection. The discussion also examines the BBC’s experience with Stonewall, what it can teach Australian media, and the next steps for public accountability. For full documentation, the latest petition, and further analysis, visit womensadvocacy.net.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

We unpack revelations from a Freedom of Information release showing how the Australian Government works behind the scenes to push back against independent UN scrutiny of our nation's women's rights record. Emma and Megan discuss why the Government is actively countering the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, how Australia is now treating women's sex-based protections under CEDAW, and the troubling blurring of lines between government priorities and UN committee independence. From debate over surrogacy to the erasure of sex-based rights, this episode explores what is really at stake when governments try to control the international conversation on women and girls.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

Emma and Liv push back against the mischaracterisation of women's rights organisations advocating for sex-based protections as 'right-wing', 'reactionary', or 'extremist'. They trace the feminist lineage of our advocacy through second-wave traditions, materialist analysis, and campaigns against prostitution, surrogacy, pornography, and male violence. From 'forced alignment' tactics that delegitimise our positions, to the conflation of sex with gender identity in law and policy, Emma and Liv explain why defending female-only spaces, critiquing gender as hierarchy, and opposing exploitation of women's bodies remain core feminist concerns—and why reclaiming our political tradition is essential to protecting women's rights today.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.

Emma and Megan unpack shocking FOI evidence showing systematic exclusion of women's groups from policies affecting our sex-based protections and rights. Whilst LGBTQIA+ organisations receive formal advisory positions, paid travel, and access to draft policies months before public consultation, women's groups scramble to respond to four-week consultation windows—if we discover them at all. From the 2013 SDA amendments that introduced 'gender identity' to the 2023 LGBTIQA+ Health Action Plan, the pattern is documented and damning. This is a clear breach of CEDAW Article 7—and it's producing bad policy with real harms for women and girls. Read the full FOI analysis and our demands at womensadvocacy.net.

This podcast provides general information and opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. Listeners should seek independent, professional legal advice before acting on any matters discussed. The hosts and AAWAA accept no liability for decisions made based on this content.