I interviewed Bob Katter on the budget. Things got awkward, fast
One of the most unexpected moments during my trip to Canberra for the federal budget last week was when Kennedy Member Bob Katter invited me to his parliamentary office for an interview.
The word “interview” should be used loosely, as there was very little of the back-and-forth you’d expect from a standard politician. Rather, “Crazy Katter,” as he was affectionately known to his constituents, was mostly talking to me.
While I was there to discuss major budget announcements given the day before, Katter was – as is well known – more interested in marching to the beat of his own drum.
No matter how many times I tried to ask about basic everyday things Australians talk about (e.g. food prices or fuel prices), the conversation went where Katter wanted it to go, even if it was impossible to understand how his answer connected to what I had just asked.
Things got particularly interesting when I expressed his interest in expanding the mining industry, particularly in his home state of Queensland.
Before I could ask her about her economic interests in this proposal, Katter interrupted me and said: “This is to provide you with enough money to be able to stay at home and have children like every other Australian mother has done for the last 200 years. You can’t do that now, it’s not an option available to you. Whether people want it or not, I just want to give them that option.”
One of the things that frustrates me about what Katter says is that it’s so broad that it could be both true and false at the same time.
As a woman who was working at the time and had two young children at home, cared for by their father, this was quite strange.
I wondered how his women’s staff, and the female colleagues he works with every day in the House of Representatives, felt about the implication that we were all doing our jobs there because the natural order was broken and it was financially impossible for us not to work at the moment.
One of the things that annoys me most about Katter’s statements is that although there are many things you may disagree with, some parts of the argument are not completely wrong. It is broad enough to be both true and false at the same time.
For example, Katter’s claim that more Australian women are joining the workforce rather than staying at home full-time is absolutely correct. Our full-time and part-time participation rates are higher than they have ever been and are arguably higher than in 1825.
He’s also right to suggest that money is one of the reasons people are having fewer or no children, or returning to work sooner than they’d like, and that parents are crying out for more cost-of-living assistance. But for a very good group of women, that’s certainly not the only reason.
I have three main problems with Katter saying that Australian women have been staying at home full-time and raising children for the last 200 years.
First, it means that women have always had a choice when it comes to joining the workforce and we used to make different choices, which is simply categorically untrue.
Secondly, the claim that the decline in birth rates is a new problem that has emerged recently, rather than a problem we have known for a long time. Actually, Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that shows that national fertility rates have declined substantially since the 1960s. While the decline in births will certainly have major consequences, it is neither new nor something that only affects this generation of parents or parents-to-be.
The third point is that women over 55 are among the fastest growing group of people experiencing homelessness in Australia.
This is not some strange phenomenon that demographers and economists cannot explain. This is because the majority of women facing this type of risk devote their lives to unpaid household chores such as raising children and running a household, meaning they do not earn any income or earn a lower income for most of their working lives. Following Katter’s “200-year norm” left them severely vulnerable, without a pension or any other significant financial safety net.
As we know, the reasons why people choose to have fewer or no children are diverse and complex. If you ask a roomful of women about their decisions, you’ll likely find many common themes, but the weight of these factors varies greatly from person to person.
Considerations in the decision-making process may include (but are rarely limited to): the cost of housing, education, general cost of living, how many incomes and parents there are in the household, job security or insecurity, fertility treatments, and general debt levels.
One person might say that they always knew they didn’t want to have children, while another might say that they once wanted four children but gave up after two because it was more expensive than they initially thought.
Some women may be working full-time but would prefer to switch to part-time work, but they are unable to do so because their employer does not offer this type of flexibility or their family cannot currently afford it.
Many women like me work not only for financial reasons, but also because we see the work as highly rewarding, mentally stimulating, and a core part of our identity. I think similar reasons are why Katter chose to still work at age 80, even though he was eligible for retirement.
The thing is, it’s not easy to determine the importance of each different factor in each person’s decision because it’s likely different for each person.
Finally, Katter said he wants to make it more affordable for women to have the right to choose. This is a good thing. However, I argue that this option should not be extended only to women.
The number of fathers choosing to stay at home and take parental leave increased from 12 percent in 2022 to 2022. 17 percent in 2025. Research shows – I know this from my own experience because my husband took parental leave with both of our children – children with father sitting at homeEven if only for a short period of time, they are likely to have better emotional and social outcomes in the long term, and relationships between parents may be strengthened through a better division of household labor.
If this is about the best outcomes for the nation’s future, surely leveling the playing field so that men, women, and children have greater freedom of choice should be what it’s about, right? Maybe I can ask Katter next time I’m in Canberra.
Victoria Devine is an award-winning retired financial advisor, bestselling author and host of Australia’s #1 finance podcast. He’s after the money. He is also the founder and director of Zella Money.
- The advice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investments or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice, taking into account their personal circumstances, before making any financial decisions.
Expert tips on saving, investing and making the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter.
Victoria Devine covered the Federal Budget as part of a group of podcasters and other new media outlets the government has granted access to.
Victoria Devine is an award-winning retired financial advisor, best-selling author and host of Australia’s number one finance podcast, She’s on the Money. Victoria is also the founder and managing director of Zella Money.
