Senator alleges inappropriate behaviour by colleague
An independent senator has alleged a parliamentary colleague made sexually suggestive and racially insensitive comments towards her.
Fatima Payman, who is Muslim and does not drink alcohol, was attending a social event as part of official parliamentary business when she says an older, male colleague made comments like "let's get some wine into you and see you dance on the table".
"I don't drink and I don't need to be made ... to feel left out because you do," she told ABC's Triple J radio station.
"I told this colleague, 'Hey, I'm drawing a line, mate', and moved on to making a formal complaint."
The issue has been escalated to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, a body established after staffer Brittany Higgins made public allegations about being raped in Parliament House by a colleague.
Senator Payman said the support service had taken care of her and she was happy with the swift handling of her complaint.
The service managed 339 cases between 2023 and 2024, according to its most recent annual report.
Just under one in ten cases related to rape and sexual assault, harassment, assault, sexual harassment, stalking or intimidation, a similar proportion were about bullying, about one in five related to family and domestic violence, alcohol and drugs or mental health, roughly one in four were over workplace conflict and the rest were not defined.
The vast majority were related to those hired to help politicians to carry out duties but not for party political purposes but 17 involved parliamentarians.
Calling out inappropriate behaviour could help others, the senator said.
"Being clear is being kind," she said.
"You actually are helping somebody understand what your boundaries are by speaking up."
AAP has reached out to the senator and the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service for further comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Music to our ears': Housing industry thrilled after Clare O'Neil reveals Albanese government's plan to slash red tape
The Albanese government's new approach to boost the construction of new homes has received enthusiastic support from the housing industry. Housing Minister Clare O'Neil announced on Saturday that the Albanese government would push states and territories to roll back excessive levels of red tape that had made it 'uneconomic' to build new homes. Through its National Housing Accord, the Albanese government has pledged to deliver 1.2 million new homes. However in an interview on the ABC, Ms O'Neil said it was 'just too hard to build a house' in Australia, an issue she attributed to '40 years of unceasing new regulation'. "On their own, each piece makes sense. But when you put it together, builders face a ridiculous thicket of red tape that is preventing them building the homes we need,' she said. 'If we're going to tackle the fundamental problem — that Australia needs to build more homes, more quickly — we need to make a change." Speaking to Sky News Australia on Sunday, the Housing Industry Association (HIA)Simon Croft said he was thrilled to hear the government was taking on the challenge of cutting red tape. 'Hearing the Housing Minister Claire O'Neill yesterday, say how they want to cut red tape, slash red tape, it was music to our ears,' Mr Croft said. Minister O'Neil's comments about the need to cut red tape follow the release of a Productivity Commission report in February, which highlighted how the regulatory growth over 40 years had increased the cost, time and complexity of housing construction. The HIA industry and policy chief executive said the cumulative impact of new and existing regulations had "driven up the cost of construction by 40 per cent over the last five years'. 'It's the additional time spent for the builders,' Mr Croft said. 'They're spending more time in the offices, having to review new rules and regulations and actually being on site with the nail bags on and laying the slabs to get these homes built.' 'So just for instance, a brick wall; there's 20 standards that apply just to a single brick wall.' Mr Croft said while it was important for the government to get legislation right, they often overlooked the implementation and support mechanisms – such as the education and training required. 'There's just been a proliferation of more and more regulations… and implementation is often seen as an afterthought,' he said. 'What we want to see is implementation – as is (just as) critical, if not more critical than the design of the policy.' Mr Croft said he was not calling for the wholesale repeal of building regulations, but it did need to be looked at. 'Is it all working correctly? Can we make some efficiency gains? And there is some outdated regulation,' he said. 'How can we streamline our planning approvals and the rezoning around it, because it's taking far too long to get those single homes built and delivered and approved. 'Often our members say they can actually build the home faster than they can get it approved.' Speaking on Saturday, Ms O'Neil said what was required was 'three years of serious reform with the states and territories in local government'. 'We're up for that, and we know they are too,' Ms O'Neil said. The Albanese government has pledged to deliver 1.2 million new homes over the five years beginning mid-2024 as part of it's National Housing Accord – an agreement bringing together all three levels of government. However ABS Housing Data released at the end of May showed new dwelling approvals fell a further 6 per cent in April 2025. The decline means that after just 10 months of the National Housing Accord, the Albanese government is already more than 45,000 homes behind its target.
The Age
7 hours ago
- The Age
The Coalition says it's open to tax reform – but there's a catch
The Coalition has offered support for bipartisan 'holistic' reform of the nation's creaking tax system as long as it does not involve higher taxes, ahead of Anthony Albanese's first major post-election speech, in which he is expected to map out his agenda for the next three years. Opposition finance spokesman James Paterson on Sunday said the Coalition could find common political ground with the government in finding ways to make the tax system more efficient as part of a process to help pay for an increase in defence spending. The Coalition is opposing the government's planned changes to tax on people holding more than $3 million in superannuation that Treasurer Jim Chalmers estimates will raise about $2.7 billion a year towards repairing the budget and covering the cost of spending initiatives. Chalmers has said the proposal is key to the government's tax agenda, pushing back at calls from economists, business groups and parts of the social welfare lobby for the treasurer and prime minister to be more ambitious. Paterson, who as the Coalition's home affairs spokesman previously backed a substantial increase in defence spending, said he and the rest of the opposition would work on 'strong fiscal rules' over the next two-and-a-half years that would improve the budget and allow for more investment in national security. Loading Admitting the Coalition had been wrong in opposing the government's cut to personal income tax ahead of the last election, Paterson said he was not opposed to a broader and bipartisan approach to tax reform. 'If the Albanese government and the Treasurer Jim Chalmers were talking about genuine tax reform, holistic tax reform across the board, that for example, reduced the collection of taxes in inefficient areas and collected that revenue in less distortionary ways, we'd be up for that conversation,' he told the ABC's Insiders program. 'We'd be happy to sit down and have that. But that's not what [the superannuation tax change] is. This is a grab for revenue from people's family savings in a way that will have severe unintended consequences.'
Sydney Morning Herald
7 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Coalition says it's open to tax reform – but there's a catch
The Coalition has offered support for bipartisan 'holistic' reform of the nation's creaking tax system as long as it does not involve higher taxes, ahead of Anthony Albanese's first major post-election speech, in which he is expected to map out his agenda for the next three years. Opposition finance spokesman James Paterson on Sunday said the Coalition could find common political ground with the government in finding ways to make the tax system more efficient as part of a process to help pay for an increase in defence spending. The Coalition is opposing the government's planned changes to tax on people holding more than $3 million in superannuation that Treasurer Jim Chalmers estimates will raise about $2.7 billion a year towards repairing the budget and covering the cost of spending initiatives. Chalmers has said the proposal is key to the government's tax agenda, pushing back at calls from economists, business groups and parts of the social welfare lobby for the treasurer and prime minister to be more ambitious. Paterson, who as the Coalition's home affairs spokesman previously backed a substantial increase in defence spending, said he and the rest of the opposition would work on 'strong fiscal rules' over the next two-and-a-half years that would improve the budget and allow for more investment in national security. Loading Admitting the Coalition had been wrong in opposing the government's cut to personal income tax ahead of the last election, Paterson said he was not opposed to a broader and bipartisan approach to tax reform. 'If the Albanese government and the Treasurer Jim Chalmers were talking about genuine tax reform, holistic tax reform across the board, that for example, reduced the collection of taxes in inefficient areas and collected that revenue in less distortionary ways, we'd be up for that conversation,' he told the ABC's Insiders program. 'We'd be happy to sit down and have that. But that's not what [the superannuation tax change] is. This is a grab for revenue from people's family savings in a way that will have severe unintended consequences.'
