Joanna Mather and Mark Ludlow PUBLISHED: 20 Aug 2013
Carol Schwartz, a key adviser to the federal government on gender issues, wants to see more money go towards making childcare affordable. Photo: Craig Abraham
Some of Australia’s most prominent women voices support Tony Abbott’s controversial paid parental leave scheme but they warn it will not have the desired productivity uplift unless childcare is made less expensive.
Melbourne University Publishing chief executive Louise Adler said Mr Abbott, labelled a misogynist in Parliament by former prime minister Julia Gillard, was to be congratulated for his new attitude to paid parental leave. “I’m in favour of anything that assists families to be with their children,” she said.
Carol Schwartz, a key adviser to the Labor federal government on gender issues, was less concerned about the cost of the scheme than ensuring more money goes to accessible and affordable childcare at the same time.
And leading academic Eva Cox rounded on fellow feminists to declare their “shrill” criticism of Mr Abbott’s policy was the product of their personal dislike for the would-be prime minister.
Mr Abbott is under attack from within his own party and among his traditional business supporter base after revealing the Coalition’s parental leave scheme will cost $10 billion in the first two years and then $5.5 billion annually once fully operational.
The price tag, which will be paid for via a levy on big business to be offset by a cut in the company tax rate, has detractors questioning his promise of prudent economic management and a return to surplus as soon as possible.
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief economist Greg Evans said the scheme would no doubt benefit small businesses, which could offer staff more generous leave without being hit by the levy.
“We would have preferred, especially in the current circumstances, perhaps a more modest scheme.” he said.
Adler published Abbott’s book in 2009
“We understand the policy intent is to create greater workforce participation, allow more women to get back into the workforce and the like. We certainly agree with that but . . . a more modest scheme could have also done the job.”
Ms Adler published Mr Abbott’s 2009 book, Battlelines, in which he revealed he had – much to the consternation of other Conservative politicians – come around to the idea of paid parental leave. “I was very impressed when he committed to that,” she said.
“If we want the skills, productivity and intelligence women bring to bear, then we have to have family-friendly workplaces.”
However, she is not convinced that women earning top dollar need as much support as lower to middle-income earners.
“I’m not sure that women earning $150,000 a year need the same level of financial support that people who are on $50,000 need,” Ms Adler said.
“Those of us who are earning well can manage our lives with greater ease than those who are not earning enough. I would suggest maybe it’s tapered off, but the principal of paid parental leave seems to be extremely important and I congratulate both parties for their commitment to it, but particularly for Tony Abbott who has taken a personal interest.”
Professor Cox remains fully supportive of the Abbott scheme amid the criticism of recent days. She said the Coalition’s scheme was good policy, but many in feminist and Left circles were against it simply because it was being proposed by the opposition leader.
“It’s not even political, it’s personal,” she said. “There’s a lot feminist groups that are so anti-Abbott that they are objecting to this because it’s come from him. “
Childcare policies failing
Ms Schwartz is the foundation chairwoman of the Women’s Leadership Institute Australia and was in January appointed to lead consultations with business and other interest groups on the reporting requirements for the federal government’s workplace gender equality reforms.
She said childcare policies had failed under both of the major parties, and called on governments to support in-home care by nannies as an alternative to traditional child care places.
“The cookie-cutter approach that this government and previous governments have taken to childcare is really inappropriate,” she said.
“That is where we miss out on GDP growth by having more women participate in the workforce.
Brisbane mother-of-two Danielle Kalpakidis said she supported paid parental leave but believed the Coalition’s scheme, which could pay up to $75,000 for six months off, was too generous and favoured working mothers.
Ms Kalpakidis, a former teacher who is a full-time carer for her two children (aged two-years-old and nine months), said the parental leave policy would not sway her vote. “I absolutely support paid parental leave but I think the $150,000 [limit in the Coalition policy which allows a $75,000 payment plus superannuation] is a bit ridiculous because it could be better spent elsewhere in more useful policies,” she told The Australian Financial Review.
“Because I’m a stay at home mum I’ll only receive $3000 bonus and the difference between $3000 and $75,000 is quite huge. It is skewed towards working women.
Policy considered ‘middle class welfare’
“If I was working I could see the benefit but it’s not enough to encourage me to go back to work because I would like to stay home and look after my children.”
Ms Kalpakidis said she considered the Coalition’s policy as “middle class welfare” and did not encourage her to have any more children.
The former teacher, who is currently on unpaid leave, received the federal government’s 18 weeks’ maternity policy on top of the standard 12-week public servant maternity policy after the birth of her first child.
“It was very helpful to our family. But I won’t be benefiting from any new policy being a stay at home mum,” she said.
She said she would prefer the extra money going to stay at home carer.
READ NEXT:
- Coalition unrest over parental leave
- Jennifer Hewett | Expect the tone to get lower
- Editorial | Abbott’s parent pay unaffordable
The Australian Financial Review
BY Joanna Mather
Joanna covers national affairs from our Canberra bureau.
