Looking back at that time, Abbott’s election felt like a momentary blip in ‘politics as normal’. Dubbed the unelectable “Mad Monk”, his decisive victory against Kevin Rudd left many Australians (even supporters) scratching their heads. Surely this was an aberration that would soon be set straight?

Of course, as things rolled on, we started to realise that Abbott wasn’t an isolated issue, he was the tip of the iceberg for a coalition party ripe to rupture at the seams. An era of Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and now Dutton leaderships ensued, illuminating how far wrong things could go?

Some other key take-aways from last night’s episode:

Tony Abbott’s myriad gaffes are much funnier in retrospect

Reflecting on the numerous times Tony Abbott embarrassed himself royally in public brings so much more joy now, than when he was leading the country. Now, we can look back on that classic onion chow-down and chuckle freely without worrying about his actual power and influence. The “suppository of wisdom” that knighted Prince Philip at a time he was already precariously low in the polls. Lols aplenty? “You bet you are”.

Fear campaigns still lie at the heart of the Liberal agenda

In what seemed like glee and admiration, colleagues like Eric Abetz and Michaelia Cash reflected on Abbott’s cunning ability to utilise three-word slogans to engender fear in the Australian populace. “Stop the boats”, “Stop the taxes”, lines that were drilled into our national psyche for months and caused Australians to stop caring about anything progressive and aspirational. More than a decade on, we see Peter Dutton employ similar fear campaigns in a bid to divide the country: “Boycott Woolworths”, et al.

Legacy matters nought for any of these blokes

Wyatt Roy recounted a conversation with Tony Abbott in which he queried the leader’s vision for the country. He didn’t receive a productive or professional response. The reason? Abbott could only ever fight for what he was against, not what he stood for. Turnbull showed promise for better things, but his commitment to the cause inevitably fell short. Why did we end up with an economically and socially costly plebiscite on gay marriage for instance, rather than a leader’s call? Morrison always cared more about politics (and God) than good policy. He openly admitted to “not thinking” about legacy. And Dutton? Well his time continues, but let’s just say the markers of anything impressive aren’t showing up strong.

Craig Laundy really hates tuna

In perhaps the oddest anecdote from last night’s episode, former MP Craig Laundy revealed that during a secret leadership spill meeting at Peter Hendy’s house, he was offered dinner. Upon finding out Hendy’s wife had dared to cook tuna mornay, Laundy suggested they order pizza because: “I really can’t do tuna”. Big stuff.

“You reap what you sow”

These are the words of Linda Reynolds and other colleagues reflecting on Turnbull’s inevitable ousting of Abbott. But is this what real leadership boils down to? We blindly accept that ego and revenge defined this long era in political history; that Abbott, Turnbull and then Morrison, were destined to fail because of their personal agendas and vendettas. But imagine, for a second, if each had played honourably? If they’d accepted democratic processes and just got on with it? It does beg the question: where would we be now? We might have more policies to be proud about.

The post What we learnt from the first ep of Nemesis? That the Liberal Party is still as cooked as ever appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Abbott made those comments almost ten years ago, in September 2013, shortly after forming government. But the memory of the “binders of talented women” waiting in the wings that he spoke about, were stirred up again this week.

With hindsight, Abbott’s comments should now seem more than disappointing, given such failures and gender imbalances ultimately put the party on the path to decimation at the 2022 Federal Election.

Recalling Abbott’s comments came following FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s own remarks about “doors”, when fending off questions about the football world body’s response to equal pay and gender equality.

Infantino went one step further than Abbott with the doors analogy: No women are knocking on FIFA’s doors, because the doors are wide open for them to walk right on in, according to Infantino. The problem, Infantino inferred when speaking with reporters over the weekend, is that women need to “pick their battles”. From where he stands, equal prize money for men’s and women’s tournaments is not the battle that should be pursued.

“With men, with FIFA, you will find open doors. Just push the doors. They are open,” Infantino said. “You have the power to convince us men what we have to do and what we don’t have to do.”

Ten years apart and two men leading, and formerly leading, two very different entities. Yet they share one dramatic point in common: the lack of women’s representation in their decision-making bodies, which is ultimately hindering their ability to address gender equality and respond to the needs, concerns and demands of women. Both claim, or claimed, that the lack of women involved in their cabinets will merely be fixed with time, because women are either knocking or have the door wide open to them. And both failed, or are failing, to offer any real plan for fixing the issue.

Abbott had one woman in his Cabinet of 19, Infantino is arguably doing a little better, albeit with the benefit of 10 more years of “progress”. Six of the 36 seats of the FIFA Council are held by women.

Curiously, Infantino shares another commonality with Abbott. The FIFA president has daughters, and was very much prepared to bring up this fact when sharing just how much credibility he has for speaking on gender equality. Abbott’s three daughters joined him on his 2013 campaign trail.

Now in 2023, Abbott is out of politics — at least formally, but will still comment from the sidelines — while Infantino is very much still the boss of football. But with the Women’s World Cup now finished, and Infantino finding plenty of opportunities to offer some terrible answers to questions on equal pay and gender equality in football, the gender equity issues facing the football body are ramping up.

Infantino said “Now is not the time” to talk about equal pay on the eve of the World Cup. He said that people should be “happy” and just enjoy all the tournament has to offer.

With the World Cup over, is now the time to talk about the FIFA Council’s lack of gender equality? Is now the time to ask what FIFA is doing to address women’s representation and pay in the game, and the run-on impacts of what it’s demonstrating, has elsewhere?

FIFA continues to fail to acknowledge the Afghan Women’s Football team, now in Australia. It has done nothing to call out the Taliban in what was once a proud football-loving country. If you’re not going to call out the Taliban, what will you call out?

FIFA’s gender gap in the prize money pool between the men’s and women’s tournaments is shamefully wide, with the men taking a pool that is four times the size of what the female players share in.

And FIFA is clearly failing to issue a clear zero tolerance policy to sexual harassment and sexual assault, given Infantino has said nothing about the matter of Spain’s Football Federation president Luis Robales, kissing the winning team’s midfielder on the lips without consent, live and for everyone to see on international television, in what should have been the biggest celebratory moment in Jenni Hermoso’s career.

The failures of FIFA and the failures of the Liberal party have plenty of differences, but ultimately they share decision-making processes that lack women’s representation.

Any organisation would be wise to learn from them, and to consider what an actual and clear path to achieving gender equity would look like.

Such organisations that are failing on gender equality may find that it actually looks like quotas.

Hearing Craig Foster speak at a Summit in Sydney on Friday, he shared what can be achieved with quotas on boards. As a life member and PFA Champion of Professional Footballers Australia (PFA) — the representative body of the Matildas, Socceroos and other professional players — he introduced a gender equality and Indigenous representation quota at the Board level, which was instrumental in ultimately leading to equal pay between the new national teams, and that pay deal likely contributing to the success of the Matildas this world cup.

Foster took particular aim at the lack of representation on the FIFA Council, saying there is no “path” to gender equality, as Infantino claims, you just make it happen.

As the Liberal party’s example shows, hoping time will fix the issue is not a strategy. Rather, it’s a path to ruin.

The post Path to ruin: When women ‘knocking on doors’ of leadership never actually get in appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The funeral, held at St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, was overwhelmed by crowds of protestors outside, with survivors of child sexual abuse describing it as a difficult day. 

In his eulogy, Abbott said Pell was a “hero”, who was made a “scapegoat for the church itself”.

“In short, he’s the greatest Catholic Australia has ever produced, and one of our country’s greatest sons,” Abbott said. 

Abbott made reference to the many angry protestors outside, saying: “As I heard the chant “George Pell go to hell”, I though “Aha!” at least, they now believe in the afterlife. Perhaps this is St George Pell’s first miracle.”

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia found Pell knew about child abuse by clergy in the 1970s and failed to take action. At the time, Pell said the findings were not supported by evidence.

Before the funeral, many people tied ribbons of solidarity with survivors of child sexual abuse outside St Mary’s Cathedral.

A devout Catholic, Abbott went on to say there should be: “Pell study courses, Pell spirituality courses, Pell lectures, Pell High Schools, Pell University colleges, just as there are for the other saints”.

Abbott also took a swipe at the “climate change movement” as he described it.

“[Pell’s] recent observation that the climate change movement had some of the characteristics of a low level, not too demanding pseudo religion was the kind of comment that enraged, precisely because it was true,” Abbott said.

“And throughout history, that’s what people have been martyred for. For telling the unpopular, unpalatable truth.”

Abbott went on to say Pell should “never have been investigated in the absence of a complaint. He should never have been charged in the absence of corroborating evidence, and he should never have been convicted in the absence of a plausible case, as the high court, so resoundingly made plain”.

In 2017, Pell stood trial for child abuse offenses and was later convicted of molesting two teenage boys during his time as archbishop of Melbourne in 1996. The conviction was overturned by the High Court in 2020. Pell always maintained his innocence.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton was in attendance at Pell’s funeral, but there were many notable absences among other political leaders. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not attend, neither did NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet or Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews.

The post Tony Abbott describes Pell as ‘the greatest man I’ve ever known’ appeared first on Women's Agenda.

And the frustration was there, ten years ago when Gillard shared those words, which later went viral to become one of the most well-known speeches of our time and forever remembered as “The Misogny Speech”. Perhaps the frustration in 2012 was a little more subtle or cautious. We now know that Gillard’s frustration had been rising for some time before spilling into that moment. She’d seen the opposition leader standing in front of “ditch the witch” signs. She’d been the target of numerous sexist comments from megaphones like Alan Jones, who declared Gillard’s father had “died of shame”. 

And mostly, Gillard had copped it, in silence. Until that speech. 

She’d been silent, likely because she was Australia’s first female prime minister. She was up against gendered double standards. Her earring choices were criticised, the cut of her jackets examined. The nature of her relationship and family life was questioned, her body parts were made fund of: like the actual menu item from an actual restaurant: “Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box.”

Gillard couldn’t win. Too tough, too weak, too strong, too powerful, too unmarried.

She had bitten her lip to let the sexism play out around her, likely always questioning the ramifications should she personally note what so many others were already feeling and questioning.  

But when Gillard herself was accused of sexism by Opposition leader Tony Abbott, she broke.

That was it, the piece that “propelled” her to act as she once said on the moment. And act she did in a spectacular way. She said later that she had her office create some talking points – a long list of the sexist things Abbott had said, and the many times he’d remained silent around the misogyny of others. She jotted some notes as Abbott spoke. She connected the pieces, and then she delivered. 

I remember the day of that speech well. It’d been a few months since we launched Women’s Agenda. We were still feeling things out, wondering what this would publication would be and if we’d find the audience for the stories we were covering. We watched the speech live in the office, reporting back on what she said. The word “finally” came up from those around me and I felt it myself. Despite personally having plenty to say about some of Gillard’s policies and her previous speeches (sometimes but not always positive), at that moment, I was very much backing the prime minister and willing her on. The speech seemed to carry the potential of a turning point for what would not be acceptable not only in politics but elsewhere. And not just in Australia, but all across the world as the speech went viral and took on a life of its own. Things would change. The frustration had boiled over and would create a new standard. Not now, not ever. Never again. 

Ten years on and away from that moment, we know things are not that simple. The past decade has been unpredictable, and difficult and raised more and more questions. MeToo, Black Lives Matter, escalating climate-related disasters, a COVID pandemic which heightened gender inequalities globally and exposed the crisis across the underpaid and undervalued care sector. 

The expectation that the United States would see a woman elected President, only to end up with Donald Trump. 

A continued churn of prime ministers in Australia: Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison. The latter of whom oversaw a government determined to believe that their “problem with women” was either a myth or a problem that would disappear with time.

So what’s changed? First, Morrison was very wrong. He missed how the frustration of women manifests and builds with momentum, even when there are setbacks. We saw it in the large numbers of women running for office, not just in Australia but all over the world.

They’re not only frustrated by misogyny and the lack of representation but also fed up with leadership that has failed to act on the most critical issues of our time. They have felt a sense of urgency, noting the lost years, lives, and potential in failing to act on equality, climate action, integrity, racism, domestic and family violence and other issues.  

The Federal election saw how such frustrations can manifest in powerful ways, with a large cohort of women running as independents winning once-thought-safe seats against large party machines. 

Sexism still exists. Misogyny is still there. It’s in the media, in boardrooms, in sport, in business, in politics and elsewhere. It’s on the street, where women and girls continue to be harassed.

Julia Gillard once said it’d be easier for the next female prime minister, and then easier again for the one after that. 

Is it easier to speak up about sexism and misogyny now, than ten years ago? It is, for some. For others, it’s not. The power imbalance continues and can be far more acute for Indigenous women, women with a disability, those from culturally diverse backgrounds and others. A speech from one of the then most powerful women in the world can help for some in certain situations, but it doesn’t stop the sexism and misogyny occurring. We only need to look at the past ten years of politics in Australia to know that.

What we do know is that frustration can build into something pretty powerful. If you can speak up, do so. You never know who or how many people are watching.

The post Sexism still there but the frustration more powerful? 10 years since the Misogyny Speech  appeared first on Women's Agenda.

It’s hard not to consider how different your family’s economic situation could be with such opportunities — particularly (in my case) in the lead-up to having each of my three children and preparing to take 18 weeks at the minimum wage. I recall feeling grateful at the time, that I’d just managed to scrap on in, following the introduction of such leave during the Gillard Government in 2011. Later, I recall grappling with how to not officially work while taking such leave — despite being one of the numerous new mothers running their own business that can’t really continue with “no work”, and being unable to afford a full replacement.

In Sweden, single parents receive 480 days of paid parental leave on bringing a new child into their lives, while two-parent families receive 240 days each, with part (but importantly, not all) of the remaining leave able to be transferred between the two parents. Fathers now take 30 per cent of all parental leave in Sweden.

Over in Norway, which became the first country in the world to specifically reserve paid parental leave for new fathers, new parents can access 49 weeks at 100 per cent of their pay, with 15 weeks reserved for dads on a use it or lose it basis.  

Australia is a long way from such world-class paid parental leave, with the 18 weeks at minimum wage offered to new mothers, and the two weeks offered for “Dad and Partner Pay” (which many new fathers simply don’t bother taking), despite some minor tweaks around the edges over the past few years.

But that could be set to change.

From the ACTU calling for paid parental leave to be increased to 52 weeks by the year 2030, to pressure from the Independents and the Greens, we haven’t heard this much about significant paid parental leave reform since former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was pushing to offer six month’s of leave at full pay to an annual salary of $150,000.

And even Abott has has stepped back into the conversation today, declaring that he “was right on paid parental leave” in comments shared with The Australian Financial Review. At the time, then PM Kevin Rudd declared: “$75,000 for millionaires to have a baby. How is that fair Tony?”

There have been no significant reform promises made by the Albanese Government, but the push is strong – and coming from numerous places.

It’s going to be difficult for this new Labor Government to ignore the calls.

From the ACTU, the push has come from outlining figures showing Australia could generate an additional $111 billion a year by addressing the gender pay gap and women’s workforce participation. They highlighted paid parental leave as a key way to get there, pushing for an increase to 52 weeks by 2030, and more immediately bumping to 26 weeks.

From advocacy groups like The Parenthood, it’s the push to make Australia “the best place in the world to be a parent” by legislating for 12 months of paid parental leave that is equally shared – at an investment of $7.6 billion that could be far outweighed by the additional GDP that could result from higher female participation.

Meanwhile, on Monday, Independent MPs including Zali Steggall and Zoe Daniel announced they will push the Albanese Government to expand the current 18-week leave scheme to 26 weeks, with Steggall to introduce a motion in the House of Representatives.

In the Senate, the Greens have introduced their own bill to reform the system – pushing for six weeks of leave to be reserved for each parent and an additional 14 weeks leave to be used by the family however they want (amounting to 26 weeks in total), paid at a replacement wage, and capped at $100,000 a year. Senator Larissa Waters described the reform as a “no-brainer that benefits everyone – parents, children and the economy”, and said it will provide more incentives and support for families to share the care. The Greens want to scrap the controversial  Stage 3 tax cuts to pay for it.

We haven’t heard this much talk about paid parental leave in years. Not since Tony Abbott shared strong ambitions for reform — although his plans were fundamentally flawed in that they did not address the essential requirement to incentivize more shared care. The Abbott-led conversation also had unfortunate consequences that may have overall damaged further debate on the issue.

Is Australia finally set to quit tinkering around the edges and introduce real paid parental leave reform? We’re inching closer –- and what is being proposed could put us much closer to world leaders, and ultimately close the massive gap Australia boasts between women’s economic attainment (we are number one amount OECD nations) and women’s workforce participation.

The post We’re inching closer to world-class paid parental leave appeared first on Women's Agenda.

During a press conference earlier this week, Hume claimed that the government’s record on easing Australia out of crisis remains strong, and Morrison’s leadership central to that.

“The economy is doing exceptionally well after an amazingly difficult couple of years”, she said. “We now have unemployment at four percent and heading down toward something with a three in front of it. We have growth that’s the envy of the developed world. And yet, because there is nothing to attack this Prime Minister about on the basis of policy, they attack his character. I think it’s cheap and lazy politics”.

She suggested that Australians and media should “check the motivation” behind accusations made against the PM, adding “I don’t dislike him, and neither do my colleagues. In fact he’s been a leader who has seen us through the most difficult of times”.

Unfortunately, despite the Senator’s valiant efforts to create a defence for the PM, there are two glaring fallacies tied to her assertions.

The first, is that the vast majority of accusations pummelling Morrison right now are coming from his own party and colleagues. They’re not coming from the opposition. It’s a point that’s been rehashed time and again, but the list continues to grow with what seems like a new LNP member each week branding the PM an insufferable bully (and that’s putting it mildly in some cases).

Barnaby Joyce, Julia Banks, Catherine Cusack, Gladys Berejiklian, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells… it’s an unprecedented and seemingly unending torrent of pointed fingers. Sure, they may be frustrated with his decisions in leadership, but as each of the above have made abundantly clear, they’re more fed up with his character.

The other issue with Hume’s assessment, pinpointed by several commentators across Twitter, is the fact that far more unforgivable character assassinations have occurred against a national leader in recent times, with Julia Gillard subjected to daily sexism and smear campaigns during her tenure. Unlike Morrison, these tactics weren’t employed by anyone within Gillard’s party, but by Hume’s own colleagues.

Surely, the Senator’s memory isn’t that short?

Surely she remembers when grinning Liberal leader Tony Abbott attended an anti-carbon tax rally outside of Parliament House, standing in front of placards branding Gillard “a bitch” and “a witch”.

Surely, she remembers a Liberal Party dinner menu that sickeningly referred to “Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail: Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box”.

Surely she remembers Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan describing Gillard as “deliberately barren” or George Brandis labelling her a “one dimensional person” for choosing not to become a parent.

Surely she remembers former John Howard staffer, Grahame Morris literally encouraging Australians to be “out there kicking her to death.”

The depths the Coalition sunk to only a few short years ago to smear the character of our first female Prime Minister was unprecedented. More importantly it was 1000 times more egregious than what is occurring with our Prime Minister today.

Morrison and his few remaining allies (like Hume) can stand there and claim that accusations made against him represent pure politics, but in doing so they dismiss the very real concerns many in the party clearly hold against him– and the very real concerns Australians do too.

Surely, a better approach would be to listen?

The post Jane Hume claims never to have seen a PM attacked on character like Morrison. Does she recall how her party treated Gillard? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The former Prime Minister, known for little else than stirring up division, released a video address to right-wing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, criticising the impacts of pandemic rules.

“For a full year we’ve let a virus dominate our lives and in the process put safety before freedom, prudence before courage and avoiding danger before accepting risk,” he said. “Even though courage, conviction and character remain vital to our success as a people.”

Subtly condemning Australia’s trust in expert advice, Abbott then said that national security, social unity and economic prosperity “will only get harder to the extent we’ve become conditioned to have experts give us all the answers and to have governments then tell us what to do.”

He went on further to lament his belief that Australian culture was being undermined, pointing to rules against people sitting in the front seat of taxis, which he deems a mark of being Australian.

“But like so much, that’s currently against the rules along with singing, dancing and having too many friends and family around for a barbecue,” he said, “thanks to the pandemic, we’re now told to form orderly and socially distanced queues – as if we were English.”

Labelling some enforced rules as “absurd”, Abbott claimed “it takes a fair dose of virus hysteria and health despotism for Australians to be barred from Victoria without first getting a visa,”

“After a lost year it is time for a reset – but not a politically correct woke reset that seems to be brewing,” he finished.

Abbott’s address however, failed to acknowledge how he’d do things differently given the chance. Would he open up Australia’s borders? Enable free movement between states? Endorse public cuddle festivals? We’ll never know. Because the thing about Abbott’s influence (no more evident than when he was Prime Minister) is that he doesn’t actually have a roadmap. He’s never been an ideas man, he’s been a 3-word slogan kind of guy. A whinger, but not a fixer.

But in his pursuit to undermine the leadership of this country and stir up controversy, he missed a critical point: Globally, Australia has one of the best success rates in the fight against the virus to date.

We’ve had just 28,780 cases and 909 deaths while countries like Britain, the US, India and much of Europe struggle to manage the rapid escalation in cases. In the UK, there have now been 3.6 million infections with just shy of 100,000 deaths, while in the US rates stand at 25.4 million cases and 423,000 deaths.

By not putting hard measures in place from the outset, these countries not only have a dire mortality rate, but have also endured long-term restrictions. The UK is now in hard lockdown. Shops and businesses are closed, the economy is crashing, the NHS is overburdened and family and friends are prohibited from seeing each other.

Yes, we’ve had a hard year, but thanks to our trust in experts we’re actually on the home-stretch. Very few countries can claim the same.

(Aren’t we glad that Tony Abbott isn’t still in the top job).

The post Tony Abbott thinks COVID measures are ‘un Australian’ while the rest of the country thinks he is appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Just when we thought we were free of your irrational, fear-mongering drivel, you pipe up with another nugget of gold.

This time, you thought you’d share your wisdom on the Coronavirus pandemic and Australia’s response to coming through as safely as possible. Your comments were intended to be calculated and clever, but really you just made yourself seem sillier than that time you were caught chomping a whole, raw onion. I guess you truly are the suppository of wisdom…

But what you fail to recognise is that we’re no longer settling for leaders who are intent on sending us backwards. 2020 has proven that progress is critical, and we know from experience that we get the opposite of that from you.

So when you irresponsibly call for COVID-19 restrictions to be relaxed, and claim that officials have become trapped in “crisis mode”, we cover our ears and change the channel. Australia might have fallen for your slogans once upon a time– indeed your whole election came down to a promise of “stopping the boats” and “killing the carbon tax”– but we see through it now.

Standing up and telling the world that “virus hysteria” is spreading like wildfire is a claim no one’s buying.

“Now that each one of us has had six months to consider this pandemic, and to make our own judgements about it, surely it’s time to relax the rules so that individuals can take more personal responsibility and make more of their own decisions about the risks they’re prepared to run,” you told a room full of reporters at the UK think tank Policy Exchange.

Do you want to know the risk we’re not prepared to run? Heeding advice from you.

But there is one silver lining to your predicable bile, Tony, and that’s this: You make it clearer than ever why we’re all looking to forward thinking, female leaders to see us out of this crisis.

Women like New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who’s become the poster child for “dealing with a pandemic successfully”. Her lockdown response was swift and decisive, but more importantly she communicated the decision effectively and inclusively. Her press conferences have always allowed ample time for questions; helping to ease the minds of her citizens— even children.

Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel, took a similar communication approach. From the very outset, she explained succinctly what her country was up against. She relied on hard science and formulated a decisive plan for navigating the months ahead; despite the pandemic’s complexity.

This is true too of Finland’s millennial Prime Minister, Sanna Marin. Despite being new to the role, she’s already earned the kudos she regularly receives. In a poll of Finnish citizens, 84 percent said they were either “somewhat” or “very” satisfied with their leader’s response and only 5 percent reported being “not satisfied at all”.

And Taiwan’s leader Tsai Ing-wen led an exceptional effort to suppress a major outbreak from ever occurring, despite her country’s proximity to China where the virus started.

These are women with drive, empathy and a purposeful agenda, Tony. Leadership traits you might care to look up. And in the midst of this pandemic, we’re looking to them for advice. So you can quit banging on about things you have no clue about.

The post Tony Abbott just proved why we’re all looking to women leaders to get us out of this crisis appeared first on Women's Agenda.

It’s been reported this week that in the senior trade role, Abbott will help the UK secure post-Brexit trade deals. His appointment has not yet been officially confirmed by the UK government, and it is unclear if the role is paid.

Thornberry, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, has labelled the appointment “staggering”, and that Abbott is a “gaffe-prone misogynist”.

“Any way you look at it, this is an absolutely staggering appointment,” she said in a statement.

“On a personal level, it is shameful that Boris Johnson thinks this offensive, aggressive, leering, gaffe-prone misogynist is the right person to represent our country overseas.

“And on a professional level, this is someone with no hands-on experience of negotiating trade agreements, who denies the climate change that we believe should be at the heart of our trade policy, and who clearly has no concept of the importance of Britain’s trade with the EU.

“He was ousted by his own colleagues after just two years in power, and rejected by his own constituents just last year. They are the people who know him best, and wanted rid of him, yet here we are now, hiring him to negotiate our trade deals around the world.”

“It’s yet more breathtaking incompetence from a government that has turned it into an art-form.”

Some people have asked me why I don’t think Tony Abbott is necessarily the best appointment for Boris Johnson to make as Britain’s so-called ‘trade supremo’. I’ve written for @theipaper explaining why he wouldn’t have had my vote on the interview panel: https://t.co/BbJ8GYGyw2

— Emily Thornberry (@EmilyThornberry) August 27, 2020

Elsewhere, it’s been reported that back in 2014, Abbott’s climate denialism frustrated then US President Barack Obama to the extent that he ad-libbed a speech about the dying great barrier reef at a G20 meeting in Brisbane.

At the time, Obama was trying to ensure a global climate agreement would be reached at the 2015 Paris climate talks.

The post British MP says Tony Abbott’s UK trade appointment is ‘staggering’ appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Let’s stop the gender wars. Women do not hold the sole responsibility to have children. It takes two to make a baby and it takes a village to raise a child – so why doesn’t government and workplace policy reflect this?

Last month former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s suggested Australia has a “need for more middle-class women to have children”.

The debate triggered by his remarks brings to light just how complex and multifaceted the issue of procreation actually is. While it has sparked many valid points to be raised about the cost of childcare, the mental load women face and the lack of superannuation during maternity leave, it also exposed a more insidious subconscious bias, and not just in the mind of Mr Abbott. I don’t know if you noticed, but hardly anyone took issue with the implication that women—and women alone—are responsible for the nation’s birth rate.

Whose job is it anyway?

For starters, addressing Australia’s population growth is not about getting more women to have children, it is about getting more people, couples and families to have children.

Women are not the gender solely responsible for raising children. It takes two to make a baby and it takes a village to raise a child. In the lifespan of a human being, there is only a relatively short period (in utero) where the woman has sole responsibility for the wellbeing of that child. So why then in the 21^st Century do we continue to use language that implies that childrearing is only a woman’s responsibility? Men can’t give birth, and they can’t breastfeed, but it’s insulting to suggest that they are incapable of other parenting duties.

Mothers can no longer afford to stay at home

Putting aside a woman’s personal desire for whether and how she wishes to parent, it is becoming increasingly evident that women can no longer afford to sacrifice their financial independence for the sake of raising a family.

One needs to only look to the recently emerging rates of homelessness among divorced women over the age of 50 to realise the perils of being a stay at home parent. Faced with ageism and an extensive gap from the workforce, many women are unable to obtain paid employment. And unless during the course of the relationship the couple have managed to accumulate significant assets, both inside and outside of super, and the separation is fair and equitable, women can find themselves in a precarious position of being unable to find work, and having no resources to fall back on.

We are all in this together

And last but not least, it’s not just women who are struggling to afford to have more children. The family unit as a whole faces a myriad of challenges when it comes to raising children and the low rate of paid parental leave is just one of them.

The growing costs of living and home ownership place greater pressure on both parents to work. At the same time, shrinking community support for parents forces most families to rely on paid childcare to juggle work and family commitments – the cost of which is a strong deterrent to having a large family.

If both parents are working, it places a greater strain on dynamics within the family. Increased work and financial pressures mean less time to connect as a couple and increased likelihood of relationship breakdown and divorce. Ask anyone and they will tell you that more flexibility at work would help both parents share the mental and parental load. However, while the numbers of hands-on dads are increasing, they still face significant discrimination.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found that only 5 per cent of fathers are stay at home parents. Of those, the Australian Institute of Family Studies reports that only 1 in 20 take paid parental leave, a low number even by global standards. This reflects a lack of workplace support for parental leave and part time hours for fathers, as was found by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. The government has no legislated approach to shared parental leave, so fathers are automatically regarded as secondary carers, while stay at home dads are not eligible for Paid Parental Leave if their spouse earns over $150,000 (this restriction does not apply to women whose spouse is a high income earner).

The birth rates make it evident that the current system is broken and is not compatible with a large family. Mothers can’t afford to be the stay at home parent, even if they want to be. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency has found that an increasing number of fathers want to be more hands-on, but there is a lack of policy and societal support to enable them to. And frankly, when we are all burnt out and stressed from juggling work and kids, who has the time or energy to make more?

The system needs fixing, and our leadership can start by changing the language they use and taking a more gender-inclusive policy approach.

It’s time to put a stop to the gender wars. Together we are stronger, and our children will be all the better for it.

Natasha Janssens is the founder of online educational platform, Women With Cents and the author of Wonder Woman’s Guide To Money: The busy woman’s guide to money management and wealth building, available now online and all good book stores.

The post It’s not a woman’s job to ‘have children’. It takes a village & policies should reflect that appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Reader, I very rarely swear but upon scanning various news items a series of expletives flew from my mouth. FFS, is the polite version. I wasn’t polite.

Between the inexplicable, opportunistic pledge shamelessly proffered by Tanya Plibersek, to Ken Wyatt’s insistence that January 26 is the appropriate date to ‘celebrate‘ Australia Day, to the never-ending revelations about Bridget McKenzie’s various allegiances with sporting clubs, to Scott Morrison’s comments about hazard-reduction being climate action, to Bettina Arndt being recognised for services to gender equity, I could’t help but hope it was all a sick joke. Has the world actually gone mad, I wondered?

I quickly tapped out a tweet asking as much before storming off to the bathroom for a shower.

Between that inexplicable pledge from Tanya Plibersek, Ken Wyatt’s pro January 26th stance, Bridget McKenzie’s allegiances, Scott Morrison’s ‘hazard-reduction is climate action’ & Bettina Arndt’s ‘gender equity’ award, I can’t help but wish it was all one sick joke. If only.

— Georgie Dent (@georgiedent) January 25, 2020

Thirty minutes later when I next looked at my phone, it seemed my sentiments were shared.

Folks, three days later I’m astonished to report things were just getting started.

Since Sunday morning it’s been revealed that Bettina Arndt is not even a psychologist as has been portrayed.

EXCLUSIVE: Confused about Australia Day Honours recipient Bettina Arndt AM's real qualifications? After an 18-month investigation, we can finally clear it up for you…https://t.co/FOKQkz8wJv #BettinaArndt #auspol pic.twitter.com/8LygHNNSMz

— newmatilda (@newmatilda) January 28, 2020

The Financial Review‘s Phillip Coorey broke the news that the Prime Minister (aka as Scotty from marketing) paid top dollar to bring Russel from marketing to his office before Christmas for some training on how to sell policies. True story.

PM's office called in Russel from marketing https://t.co/Bnq0i7uEE4

— Phillip Coorey (@PhillipCoorey) January 27, 2020

The ABC’s Andrew Probyn revealed that the coalition had a colour-coded map for which sporting associations and clubs would receive grants before the election (hint: only those in marginal seats) which Sport Australia warned the minister’s office was compromising its independence.

The agency charged with administering the sports grant scheme warned the Morrison Government that its interference in the $100 million program was compromising its independence, reports @andrewprobyn #Insiders #InsidersReading #auspol https://t.co/IIuh5TNKOL

— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) January 28, 2020

Here’s a list of clubs that missed out.

Here's a list of the top-rated clubs, according to Sport Australia, that missed out on funding under the scandal-plagued Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program #auspolhttps://t.co/8wZQYkyvcW

— Jane Norman (@janeenorman) January 28, 2020

And, then, the former prime minister and one-time minister for women, Tony Abbott  weighed in calling for middle class women to have more children.

I shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore, but then…

'That is a real problem in every western country: middle class women do not have enough kids. Women in the welfare system have a lot of kids' https://t.co/7Wz8ggkjRT via @theage

— Miki Perkins (@perkinsmiki) January 28, 2020

“That is a real problem in every western country: middle class women do not have enough kids. Women in the welfare system have lots of kids,” Abbott said. “If you’re very wealthy you can afford to have as many kids as you want.”

IS THIS EVEN REAL? I fear 2020 is set to become the year swearing becomes my new normal. And i suspect that is going to the be least of all problems.

Tony Abbott prefaced his call for the “wealthy”  women of the world to procreate in greater numbers with this.

“While I’m all in favour of stay-at-home-mums if that’s their choice, I do think that a properly conservative government, acknowledging that having a family is one of the most wonderful things that anyone can do, would make it easier for women in the workforce to have more kids.”

That, making it easier for women to combine work and family responsibilities is an ambition I share. Passionately. But, Tony and I depart ways there. His remarks are so many shades of ill-informed it’s hard to know where to begin.

Making it easier for parents to combine work and family is precisely how more women can create financial independence and security that would mean they are less likely to need government support.

Making it easier for parents to combine paid work and family is more important for women on lower incomes than wealthier women because, surprise!, paid work is how individuals have any chance of creating economic security, let alone ‘wealth’.

Perhaps the reason middle-class women have fewer children (if that is indeed the case) is because they recognise that having fewer children might be the easiest way to ensure and maintain their financial security?

Raising children is expensive and Australia lacks the critical social infrastructure like affordable, universal childcare and adequate paid parental leave policies that make it easier for families.

Also, too many workplaces in Australia remain poorly equipped at supporting employees to balance their caring responsibilities, in part because of entrenched archaic social views from the 1950s about gender roles. (The ironing Tony, remember the ironing?)

The fact the bulk of the day to day responsibility for raising children and running homes still sits overwhelmingly with women is another very legitimate obstacle that women may consider when making decisions about how many children, if any, they would like.

Because children are incredibly expensive, Australia lacks the critical social infrastructure like affordable, universal childcare and adequate paid parental leave politics that makes it easier, and too many workplaces in Australia remain poorly equipped at supporting employees to balance their caring responsibilities.

The fact the bulk of the day to day responsibility for raising children and running homes still sits overwhelmingly with women is another very legitimate obstacle that women consider when making decisions about how many children, if any, they wold like.

Yet, no where did Tony Abbott make the point that if employers, governments and even fathers were more intentional and committed to encouraging an equal distribution of parenting and unpaid care work, then perhaps the idea of more children might be considered by more women.

Of the myriad reasons making it easier for all Australians to combine their family responsibilities with paid work is a critical objective, helping richer women to have more children is the least compelling.

Can this week please end already? I’m not sure I can take much more of this.

The post Tony Abbott wants middle-class women to have more children appeared first on Women's Agenda.

“History does not look kindly on leaders who fail to properly prepare a nation for the challenge ahead. It is time to act on this with bipartisanship. Australian diversity, inventiveness and can-do culture has served us well, and will continue to do so. By recognising the industries of the future and investing in emerging clean technologies, we can provide jobs for regional Australia, and ensure we are a 21st-century clean energy superpower.”

She also took the opportunity to remind the nation that trust in Australian politicians is at its lowest in a decade. “It is time for a more respectful approach and accountability,” she said. “It’s time for more than just words. It’s time for fact-based policy and sensible politics.”

Earlier this year, Steggall sat down with our journalist Georgie Dent to express her thoughts on the electorate:

“People want their lives to be easier. They want a clean environment, a good future for their children.”

When asked whether there was any trepidation on stepping into politics, Steggall said, “I wouldn’t say I was afraid. I’ve always been up for a challenge and don’t shy away easily. I tend to make my mind up quickly and proceed down that path.”

Her frank call for the declaration of a “climate emergency” today in Parliament carries on the momentum instigated two days ago by newly minted MP Labor MP Anika Wells, who argued eloquently for action on climate change:

“In the near future, the North Pole will cease to be covered with ice in summer. It will be a dark ocean absorbing heat instead of a vast sea of white ice reflecting it. It will be time to colour in the top of the globe.”

Today, Steggall’s solid tenor and conviction were conveyed through the strength of her words:  “The cost of inaction is too great. I refuse to be part of the generation that had all the facts but failed to take meaningful action.”

View the entire speech below.

Zali Steggall (Ind-Warringah) – Maiden Speech

The post ‘The kids are smarter than us’: Zali Steggall calls for immediate action on climate change appeared first on Women's Agenda.