Remember how work and family balance was meant to be a bbq stopper? So saith the PM. Among the many issues no longer the subject of discussion in the election campaign that never stops campaigning are issues to do with paid parental leave and many others which might fall under that heading. Silence on both sides (and I’m really disappointed at Julia Gillard on this front). Interestingly, I just happened across the Marie Claire channel on YouTube. Marie Claire has always carried vaguely political stories as well as the usual 30+ something high end women’s mag fare. Still, I was surprised to find the Marie Claire editor had secured access to both Howard and Rudd for interviews on paid parental leave (”maternity leave” in their book), childcare, domestic violence, and also employment and climate change.
This is really under the radar stuff - haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere in the MSM. But, as previously observed, this sort of thing is double-edged. Jackie Frank is not a political journo (though maybe that’s a good thing), but nevertheless the videos are so short there’d be no opportunity for probing questions anyway.
The tie-in with yahoo7 might mean that it’s reaching a substantial audience - and Howard has problems with the 30 something female voters who turned against Latham last time. Something is better than nothing, but the reach of this is still pretty limited, and it’s a real pity that such important issues aren’t the subject of serious discussion. I’d be tempted to say this is a job for mass market media, but then it’s largely their fault that something that the spin of the day claimed was of vital national importance is now once again invisible.
But here’s a tip - it’s precisely these sorts of issues that resonate with people’s everyday lives and given the whole split between the macro-economic focus of the Coalition and the micro-politics of Labor’s focus on lived experience. So, maybe, just maybe, Labor might favourably surprise me by talking to more people than just Marie Claire aficionados about work and family issues and domestic violence during the campaign itself.
Paragraphs, Kim! Paragraphs!
Jackie Frank was on SunRise talking about this the other day (hey, I have to watch something while I eat breakfast, and I’d already seen the Spiderman episode on channel whatever).
Even in principle support of extended paid maternity leave would be a massive electoral winner.
Australia is one of two OECD countries that lacks compulsory paid maternity leave scheme (guess who the other one is) and public support for the idea is running at something like 80%.
But the Liberal Party won’t go for it because they like the economy more than they like people - the Chambers of Commerce will starting screeching blue murder: “It’ll cost jobs”, “What about the economy”, “UNION BOSSES”.
The Labor Party won’t go for it because that would mean sticking their neck out. Although in this instance, it would be a clever move. Pledge support for paid maternity leave, have the Liberal Party oppose the move (”Oh my God, the economy, UNION BOSSES”) and then sit back and watch the ‘family’ vote move even further away from them.
Just for you, CK.
Jobby and others, just take note that calling it “maternity leave” forces it into a box, or rather, it forces people into a box. “Parental leave” is vastly preferable because it doesn’t provide that the person who gets the leave must be the woman.
Thanks, Helen.
Point taken.
And given the fact that I’ll be a father soon, I’d love nothing more than to be able to take some time off.
But if ‘paid parental leave’ were to be instituted by either party in the near future, you can bet it will be ‘maternity leave’ - the idea of extending this sort of leave to fathers is probably a way off.
The other thing of interest that Jackie Frank mentioned on Sunrise was that, during her interview with Howard, he refused to acknowledge that women had been more adversely affected by WorkChoices than men, which was, for her, a given. She was quite shirty about it, which gave me some hope.
But if ‘paid parental leave’ were to be instituted by either party in the near future, you can bet it will be ‘maternity leave’ - the idea of extending this sort of leave to fathers is probably a way off.
Other countries do it!
Say things aren’t possible, and they won’t be. Employers once said the 8 hour day and the banning of child labour was impossible. It was once thought that the abolition of slavery would lead to the demise of the US economy. And so on.
Just a bit of uncharacteristic optimism from me…
Political pragmatism has probably pessimised my perspective.
Thank you Kim. I love being all prissy and correct.
i read the interviews in Marie Claire. Howard’s play of smoke and rhetoric comes off really bad compared to Rudd’s more practical responses.
The quality of the interview is interesting. I think of Marie Claire as a certain kind of media-based advocacy for the niche-market readership. The upper-middle class audience doubles as political constituency. Jackie Frank asks the sorts of questions that imagine a certain type of audience. She doesn’t represent them per se, but works as an advocate by framing the debate/conversations in certain ways.
What interested me in your post though Kim, was the use of ‘BBQ stopper’. I have been thinking a lot of about this little phrase, especially in the context of those infamous lamb advertisements. Whenever my parents or someone I know started talking about immigration and refugees, etc I would also say something like, “Are they ever going to stop you from doing something? Will they ever stop you from having a BBQ?”
The BBQ as we know, and humourously represented in the Sam Kekovich lamb ads, have a certain link to Australian nationalism. As a certain kind of backyard or domestic event there is a line drawn from the backyard to the scale of the nation. The imaginary of the nation is performed and experienced in backyards around the BBQ (the sights, sounds, smells, touch).
The irony is of course John Howard pitched his rhetoric so it would actually (allegedly) stop BBQs. The struggle or debates that erupt at BBQs over these ‘issues’ also cut to the way the nation is performed and experienced.
Helen
Perhaps you are right. But any mother who eschewed raising her child, especially while that child was young, should not be permitted to have any more children.
So who is supposed to cough up the cash for the “paid” part of paid maternity leave?
SATP, everyone in society who benefits from having kids who have had loving and attentive parents and who hopefully grow into well-adjusted adults. Obvious.
Thanks, glen, interesting points. The bbq stopper one, which should be obvious, had never occurred to me before.
Helen
“Parental leave� is vastly preferable because it doesn’t provide that the person who gets the leave must be the woman.
Perhaps you are right. But any mother who eschewed raising her child, especially while that child was young, should not be permitted to have any more children.
I didn’t think it necessary to point that out, JG, but that implies that the dad is looking after the child. I’m not talking about leaving her on a folding chair on a highway divider.
This post by Dave Neiwert of Firedoglake is timely and pertinent. (Hat tip Tigtog).
Kim - there was a rally in NSW about the issue about 2 months ago, organised by Marie Claire. It got stories in the MSM at the time.
The organisation I work for, a large charity, has its own parental leave scheme. About 70% of our workforce is female. It makes sense for us to try and keep those staff and provide paid parental leave and then flexible work arrangements upon return to work is much more cost effective than recruiting and training new people, especially in a tight labour market.
We provide most leave to birth mothers, (9 weeks) but also shorter leave periods to fathers / partners. We reckon the cost of the scheme across the total workforce is between $60 and $200 per annum per head. A fairly small investment for a good outcome.
Angharad, all fine if it can be averaged. It just puts the cost of hiring breeding age females up slightly, and is nothing compared to normal ongoing recruiting costs.
However it is beyond a joke if there is only one staff, who is female.
Interesting. I watched all the Youtube videos and Howard seems pretty condescending, doesn’t he? Obviously they made very short videos because they were being aired online has anyone read the full interviews on the mag? How do they come across in print? Re marie claire’s push for paid parental/maternity leave, i just checked
their websiteand it seems like an issue they are continually campaigning for. they also seemed to have a bit of a campaign going on climate change as well. it might be more light and fluffy than investigative news reporting but maybe that will help the readers who usually only care about clothes and makeup?