Wife of former MP defends Labor’s Anika Wells over ‘gendered’ criticism
The loud and simplistic controversy over Anika Wells’ travel is completely detached from the realities of public life, writes Madeline Simmonds.
The recent controversy surrounding Minister Anika Wells’s spending has triggered another cycle of outrage.
Much of it loud, simplistic, and detached from the realities of public life.
As someone married to a former federal Member of Parliament and as a mother of young children, I feel compelled, mother to mother, to speak to an aspect of this debate that is too often ignored.
I don’t vote Labor. I don’t share the Minister’s politics.
But I recognise the pressures she faces because I’ve lived adjacent to them.
When my husband served in Canberra, our family experienced first-hand the brutal rhythm of political life: seven days a week, constant travel, long absences, and the expectation that you are always “on”. Throw in Covid and it was bloody tough.
Flights and accommodation are expensive.
But these are not extravagances, they are the basic cost of running a national government in a geographically vast country. We want ministers who are present in their communities, visible in their portfolios, accountable to the public. That requires movement. And movement costs money.
Minister Wells has been vocal about the challenges of social media harms and the need for better protections for young people, an issue that affects families across Australia.
The work of regulating and understanding the digital ecosystem is not done from a single office. It requires travel, consultation, and constant engagement with experts, communities, and stakeholders.
We cannot demand broad-ranging, modern, responsive governance while simultaneously condemning the practical costs of delivering government.
To pretend that women in politics should operate without support, without flexibility, without the ability to stay connected to their families despite punishing demands, is to ignore the structural barriers that keep women out of public life in the first place.
When we leap to condemn a mother for the logistical realities of her job, what message does that send to the next generation of potential female leaders?
It says, you may serve your country, but only if you pretend you don’t have children. To me, that is terrifying.
And frankly, that is exactly why quota systems exist. Because until we address both the bias and the practical constraints, women will continue to be judged by standards that men rarely confront.
There is, of course, a place for scrutiny. Accountability is essential.
But when criticism becomes gendered, when it fixates on the “juggle,” the childcare, the family logistics, the effect is unmistakeable.
We are not assessing conduct.
We are assessing motherhood.
And if that is the bar, then it is no wonder capable women hesitate before stepping into public life.
I’ll repeat: I am not a Labor voter. Defending Anika Wells does not advance my political interests – indeed it will probably hurt them. But I cannot sit silently while the realities of working mothers in politics are erased in favour of outrage cycles.
I know what the travel looks like.
I know what the hours look like.
And I know how hard a mother must work to hold her family together while serving the nation.
If Australians truly want more women of calibre in Parliament, then we must accept what it takes for them to serve.
Madeline Simmonds is the wife of former federal Liberal National Party MP Julian Simmonds
Originally published as Wife of former MP defends Labor’s Anika Wells over ‘gendered’ criticism
On the brink: LNP’s taunt as CFMEU motion splits Labor
