Abbie Chatfield addresses federal election controversy and Anthony Albanese posts
Abbie Chatfield has addressed the controversies that erupted following her decision to speak out ahead of this year's federal election — and how she is 'often a scapegoat' to the 'demeaning' and 'deeply damaging' effects of being targeted by fellow feminists and far-right trolls.
Chatfield used her platform to speak out about politics and the recent federal election in May. An Australian Electoral Commission inquiry was raised after collaborative social media posts between Chatfield and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as well as former Greens leader Adam Bandt, were queried by Liberal Senator Jane Hume.
The AEC ultimately concluded that Chatfield's posts did not require authorisation under electoral law.
Listen to the full interview with Abbie Chatfield on Something To Talk About:
Speaking to the Stellar podcast, Something To Talk About, Chatfield said: 'The AEC stuff was a whole other level of, I believe, discrediting smaller voices, but also discrediting outspoken young women'.
Picture: Steven Chee for Stellar
Abbie Chatfield is on the cover of today's Stellar. Picture: Steven Chee for Stellar
'It seems that when women do more than one thing, they're deemed as inept at all the things they do,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About, in a new episode released today.
'But when men do more than one thing it's like, wow, he's a footy player and he can read an autocue.
'The AEC thing made me feel really targeted. I feel I'm often a scapegoat because of how the media portrays me as being the spokesperson on things, and they go, 'Oh, she's talking again…''
Chatfield also addressed recent criticisms lobbed at her by prominent writer and feminist Clementine Ford, who accused her of 'profiting from the performance of being politically engaged' following an interview that Chatfield conducted with Albanese on her podcast.
Abbie Chatfield has addressed her recent controversies in a new interview with Stellar. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Clark
'I feel like I'm in the middle of stories like that all the time. So it's kind of, unfortunately, my norm,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About.
'But it's never enjoyable or pleasant. This idea that because I'm not doing things perfectly, that I'm an idiotic narcissist, I don't know anything, I'm brain dead, I'm a deeply basic thinker – they're just insults.
'It's not actually critiquing my work.
For more from Abbie Chatfield, listen to the full interview on Something To Talk About:
'It was really hurtful because then after that, the right-wing comments came in saying, 'Nothing better than a cat fight. Two feminists fighting. You can't even agree with each other!'
'And it's very demeaning. And that isn't Clementine's fault, but it is something that she should have considered, and that I have considered when I haven't called her out for
things that I would say are deeply damaging.'
In the Stellar cover story and podcast episode released today, Chatfield also opens up about her personal life and relationship with boyfriend Adam Hyde, and why she is in a better place when it comes to her life outside of work
She issues a warning to women, saying they 'shouldn't date Trump supporters'.
Listen to the full interview with Abbie Chatfield on Something To Talk About now, and watch it here.
See the cover shoot with Abbie Chatfield in today's Stellar via The Sunday Telegraph (NSW), Sunday Herald Sun (VIC), The Sunday Mail (QLD) and Sunday Mail (SA). For more from Stellar, click here.
Originally published as 'Beyond sick of it': Abbie Chatfield fires back at critics
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
20 minutes ago
- ABC News
Can Trump sack his way to better jobs data?
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump didn't like the numbers, so he sacked the messenger. So what are the implications of the US President's decision to get rid of the nation's chief statistician who dared to release revised job figures? Today's staff writer at The Atlantic, Tom Nichols, on the sledgehammer Trump is taking to democracy. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Tom, we know that Donald Trump has trouble dealing with the facts, but wow, he really has gone a step further this time, hasn't he? Tom Nichols: Yeah, although I think that this is more of a warning to the next person rather than Trump really believing that the facts are wrong. I think he is lashing out because he's angry and by firing this person, he's trying to send up a flare that says, from now on, give me the numbers that I prefer. Sam Hawley: Oh, yes, all right. So last week, these new job figures came out and they weren't fantastic. Trump didn't obviously like them, so he sacks the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, because he says her numbers are wrong. Donald Trump, US President: I think her numbers were wrong, just like I thought her numbers were wrong before the election. Days before the election, she came out with these beautiful numbers for Kamala. Tom Nichols: Well, he was very happy with those numbers earlier in his term when they were reflecting job growth. What happened, of course, is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does a lot of this work by reporting, by self-reporting from American companies, has to do revisions as they get more information coming in from those companies over time. And ever since the pandemic, those companies have been a bit slower about reporting and kind of getting that data together to get it to the Labor Department. So, of course, every so often, BLS comes out and says, OK, now we're going to revise the jobs report that we put out. And Trump decided that revising the jobs numbers downward, that this was some kind of act of political sabotage. Donald Trump, US President: We're doing so well. I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election. And there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her. And you know what? I did the right thing. Tom Nichols: Now, again, whether he really believes that after glorifying the good numbers that he got is, I think, questionable. And so he's doing the thing that he likes to do as a former business owner, which is firing people who annoy him. And the quickest way to annoy him is to give him bad news. Sam Hawley: And others in the White House are also now trying to explain this sacking, aren't they? Like Kevin Hassett, who's Trump's economic adviser. He was on Fox News echoing Trump's doubts about the job figures. Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council: If I were running the BLS and I had the biggest downward revision in 50 years, I would have a really, really detailed report explaining why it happened so that everybody really trusted the data. And so I think what we need is a fresh set of eyes at the BLS. Somebody who can clean this thing up. Sam Hawley: Alright, well, Trump's accusing her of being a Biden stooge. Tom Nichols: Yeah. Sam Hawley: I mean, she's not, obviously. Tom Nichols: Yeah. I mean, these are career, you know, civil servants in the American system. At a certain level of seniority, you have to be nominated by the president, who is the head of the executive branch, and then confirmed by the Senate. And this woman was confirmed overwhelmingly in the Senate, including by two US senators whose names happen to be Marco Rubio and JD Vance, who, of course, are now the secretary of state and the vice president. So there was no issue with her being some sort of political stooge. It's pretty hard to find lifelong statisticians who are also political stooges hiding in the American bureaucracy. Sam Hawley: Wow. OK. Because these revised figures, which showed that job growth wasn't what Donald Trump wanted it to be, it doesn't fit with his narrative, I assume, especially as he rolls out these global tariffs. Tom Nichols: Right. You know, Trump creates his own reality. When reality collides with his promises, he says that the reality is fake. The numbers are fake. The reports are fake. The news is fake. People are out to get me. Everything is rigged. And there's a real danger here, because it's not just the president, you know, being annoyed by these numbers. If you undermine the stability and trustworthiness of BLS, of the statistical organisation, businesses across America count on these numbers, as do foreign governments. So basically, Donald Trump is saying, I don't like bad news, so I'm going to basically blind us about what's actually going on at any given moment in the American economy, which suits him just fine, because he will tell his own story about it. But for the rest of us, it's quite dangerous. Sam Hawley: All right, so Tom, let's look further then into what else Donald Trump has been doing when it comes to the American bureaucracy and, of course, truth and facts. We always knew he wanted to get rid of anyone who was critical of his thinking, right? That was part of so-called Project 2025. Just remind me about that. Tom Nichols: Well, Project 2025, it never mentions Donald Trump. It was meant to be a handbook for the next Republican president. Now, of course, they knew that the next Republican president would be Donald Trump. And so this was a document produced at the Heritage Foundation that had an overarching scheme for essentially destroying entire pieces of the American government and its bureaucratic infrastructure. Of course, people always think that sounds good, because who likes the word bureaucracy, right? I mean, you think of bureaucracy and you think about the Department of Motor Vehicles or trying to get your license renewed or something. But here in the United States, as in every developed country, bureaucracy is how the mail gets delivered. It's how labour statistics get compiled and so on. What they really wanted to do, and this is at the heart of a lot of Project 2025, is to get rid of the apolitical servants in the bureaucracy and replace them with Republican conservative political loyalists. And specifically people, of course, by extension, who are going to be loyal to Donald Trump, which then makes the idea of an apolitical administration of a gigantic country of 350 million people impossible, because it's a return to cronyism and political hackery. But that's exactly what the project aims for in what they would call reforming the bureaucracy. Sam Hawley: So tell me, who else has the president deemed to be standing in his way? Who else has he been after? I know, Tom, the list is long, so you might just want to mention the highlights. Tom Nichols: The Department of Justice, which he is hollowing out and destroying piece by piece. The Department of Defense, which is now in the hands of a talk show host. Those are the two big ones that really could have been a problem. That along with, again, an apolitical civil service that says, well, we can't actually break the law. You know, we can't actually engage in politics in the office. But Trump is pushing to destroy all of those regulations. And he's mostly there. I mean, he has the Department of Justice. What he doesn't have are America's judges, who he's trying, of course, to replace through appointments. But even some of his own appointees are fighting him. And so now the Trump administration is really encouraging threats against American judges. I mean, we are really, you know, in the American judiciary is in the fight of its life here to maintain its independence. Unfortunately, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court has decided that Donald Trump is a king and can do whatever he wants. You know, we're in a pretty dicey situation here in the United States. Sam Hawley: And federal scientists too, right? That's really concerning. Tom Nichols: Oh, absolutely. I mean, climate scientists, you know, virologists, epidemiologists. If you had said to me five years ago that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be running the Department of Health and Human Services, I would have said that it's a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live. And I wouldn't have believed you. Authoritarian leaders don't like experts. Experts are the people who say, look, you can yell at me and threaten me all day long, but, you know, water is still wet and the sky is still blue. And, you know, people are going to die because of this. I mean, there is going to be real harm to the health and well-being of a lot of Americans because of this kookery that's infested the government now. And again, firing all those civil servants, firing all those government scientists and replacing them with people who want, you know, jobs and nice offices is an important step in that. Sam Hawley: Yeah. And not only sacking people, Tom, I also read that he's trying to change history, rewriting historical documents. Tom Nichols: Well, he was very upset that the Smithsonian Institution had an exhibit about impeachment that included him. And that was taken out. Now, apparently, because of the outcry around that, that he is going to be put back in there, whether he likes it or not, which tells you that if people get angry enough and they make enough noise that, you know, you can have some effect here. Yeah, Trump simply reorders reality whenever he speaks to his liking. And again, he may well know, I mean, at this point, it's so difficult to know what Trump believes and what he imagines or what he confabulates. But he knows that he's speaking to his loyal base. And that base right now is pretty angry with him about the whole Jeffrey Epstein business, which is a whole other drama here in America. So he's trying to throw them all kinds of red meat as fast as he can to try and get their minds off the fact that he didn't fulfill his promise to release all these files about one of his best friends. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Tom, Donald Trump, he's restructuring the bureaucracy to suit his view of the world. Project 2025 was, in essence, a wish list of ways to expand presidential power, if you like. So is that happening in your view? Is Trump becoming more powerful? Tom Nichols: It's hard to say. The best barometer of whether the Republicans and Donald Trump are stronger or weaker is this obvious panic that has overtaken them about losing the House next year. Is he personally more powerful? I don't think so. I think he was probably at the height of his power when he came into office and in those first few months. But there have been so many screw ups and misfires and stumbles that I think, you know, if there was any kind of second term honeymoon, he's mostly squandered that away. And so I think he's still the president of the United States and he is still a force to be reckoned with. But I don't think he's looking quite as powerful as he was even, you know, two or three months ago. Which is not to underestimate him. Because he will do things that other presidents would not. Strangely enough, this Epstein business is the thing that's probably hurt him more than anything. I think he's really worried about his base turning on him. And the only time they've even threatened to turn on him has been over this Epstein business. Sam Hawley: Yeah, interesting. All right. Well, the concern for a long time, of course, has been that Trump will chip away at democracy and democratic norms over his four year term, which is rather long. How much damage could he actually do in that time? Tom Nichols: Oh, he's not chipping away at it. He's jackhammering away at it. The chipping away was in his first term, but that was held in check by people around him who would say things like, Mr. President, you can't do that. Or even more importantly, they would say, Mr. President, I'm not doing that. He learned from that. He has come into office with a bunch of careerists and opportunists and sycophants who are going to do whatever he tells them to do. He's calling for an investigation, for example, into Jack Smith, the special counsel who was looking into his various misdeeds in his first term. And the lawyer who will be the head of that office is a 30 year old guy who got his law degree last year. And he'll do whatever Trump wants him to do. Sam Hawley: Well, Tom, I don't want to be overdramatic, but could he actually succeed then in destroying or at least deeply wounding American democracy? Tom Nichols: Destroying, probably not. One of the strengths of the United States is that we are a sprawling, vast federal system. Donald Trump can say a lot of things, but, you know, New York and California and Illinois and Massachusetts all have their own governors and legislatures. What he can do is encourage the collapse of democracy in pockets. It's one thing to live in Boston. It's another thing to live in Alabama or Louisiana or Mississippi or Texas, where the governor and the legislature are straight up aligned with the president and have decided that if he doesn't like the way the Constitution is written, then they don't like it either. And so I've said in the past, I don't think American democracy collapses from coast to coast. I think it evaporates in pockets. That's where I think the real threats are going to come, is in this kind of cooperation with individual states and governors and legislatures. Sam Hawley: Tom Nichols is a staff writer at The Atlantic. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Latest poll shows Aussies support climate action to prevent risks from extreme weather events
A new poll has revealed a majority of Australians want the government to take stronger climate action and limit risks from extreme weather events such as bushfires. YouGov surveyed 1500 Australians, finding 77 per cent of respondents wanted stronger climate action, while 13 per cent thought the government should do less to prevent risks from extreme weather events. A report released by the Productivity Commission this week found the cost of ignoring climate risks would cost the economy an extra $26bn in the next two decades. The Commission found Australia was expected to experience more extremely hot days, longer fire seasons, heavy rainfall over short periods, rising sea levels, coastal flooding and intense tropical cyclones. It stated a harsher climate would increase costs for Australia from $9bn in 2023 to $35bn by 2050 if Australia did nothing to adapt. 'Disasters create lasting health effects for households, and negatively affect education outcomes and earnings,' the report stated. The government is expected to reveal its 2035 target by September with advice from the Climate Change Authority. Climate Council chief executive officer Amanda McKenzie said setting a strong 2035 climate target will help protect Australians from climate harm while driving new jobs and economic opportunities. 'Climate action and renewable power have been vote winners at the last two federal elections,' she said. 'Voters' concerns about extreme weather are justifiably growing more urgent. 'Almost eight in 10 want Australia's climate plans to reduce risk from climate-fuelled extreme weather, while more than six in 10 think the government should do more overall on climate.' The Climate Action Network program director Barry Traill said support for credible climate action and strong, science-backed pollution reduction targets are solidly mainstream positions in Australia. 'MPs can't afford to turn their backs on people losing their lives, their savings and their homes,' he said. 'Climate denial has and will continue to be punished at the ballot box. Australians want real action to protect lives and livelihoods.'
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Productivity Commission calls for changes to road user charges to fund road upgrades
The federal body tasked with boosting Australian living standards has reissued calls for a national road user charge to help fund major infrastructure projects, which would also force drivers of electric vehicles to contribute to road maintenance. As it stands, EV drivers are not subject to the 51.6 cents per litre fuel excise drivers ultimately pay when refuelling at the bowser. The call to arms was detailed in the Productivity Commission's (PC) analysis of the National Competition Policy – the fourth of five reports handed to Jim Chalmers ahead of the Economic Reform Roundtable later this month. This follows long-term calls by the PC to enact a road user charges on all vehicle types, with a current charge only applied to heavy vehicles through a diesel excise. 'Road infrastructure should be funded through user charges (prices) that reflect the efficient cost of providing and maintaining that infrastructure,' the report said. 'By giving drivers a clear signal about the cost of infrastructure, they would have an incentive to use it more efficiently. 'Moreover, there will be a signal to infrastructure providers where changes in road capacity are warranted.' It said national reform should be prioritised following the High Court challenge which overruled the Victorian government's attempt to put in place a 2 cents a kilometre on EV drivers in 2023. The PC also noted that the 'growth in use of electric vehicles' should be 'added impetus' for priority reform, with the commission set to give its final report to the Treasurer in late October. 'The decision of the High Court rules out state-based distance road user charges and means governments need to consider a national approach to road funding,' it said. 'This opens the opportunity to design a system that is less fragmented and better reflects the costs of providing and using road infrastructure.' In an earlier report released this week, the PC urged Labor to scrap subsidies on EVs, like the fringe benefits tax exemption on electric cars and plug-in hybrids. Instead, it said the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard should be the 'main tool for promoting clean vehicles'. Previously Mr Chalmers has said the government has no immediate plans to tax EV users, however he said discussions with the sector and states had been ongoing. 'Over time, the use of fossil fuels in our car fleets will come down, and EV use will go up,' he told reporters in July. 'We've seen that, and we're making a contribution to that with our policies and that will have implications for the tax base.' However, despite lags at a federal level, the NSW state government has flagged a distance-based charge for eligible EVs set to come into place from July 1, 2027, or when EVs make up 30 per cent of all new vehicle sales. The PC's analysis of competition policy also found regulating Australian standards with overseas standards could boost GDP by up to 0.2 per cent a year – a nominal increase between $1.9bn to $3.8bn. Occupational licensing reform, which would make it easier for workers to move interstate, was noted as a competition-boosting change which would result in the biggest affect on the economy, which could deliver between a $5bn to $10bn boost to GDP. This comes after the government flagged changes to design a national scheme for people in electrical trades in the March federal budget.
