I don’t like to admit it, but I was a debater. A mad keen, passionate debater. If ever debaters get stuck thinking about a topic, we are trained to reframe the debate.
Former Prime Minister John Howard’s comments yesterday at the Press Club, reminded me of how urgently we need to reframe the debate about women in political leadership roles. Asked why there weren’t more women in Parliament, he responded ‘I’m not sure you will ever have a 50-50 thing because it is a fact of society that … there (are) still women playing a significantly greater part of fulfilling the caring role in our communities, which inevitably place some limits on their capacity’.
Mr Howard’s comments assume two things: firstly, that the current way that parliamentary roles are structured cannot be changed and secondly that women being primarily responsible for unpaid and care work is just ‘how it is’.
For many people, men and women, the lives our parliamentarians lead is not appealing. Approximately 18 weeks a year flying in and out of Canberra, and then in your electorate weeks, flying to events and attending every community activity – day, night, weekend. Say what you like about politicians, but they, and their families, give up a lot for these jobs. For anyone who has significant caring responsibilities (and yes, at the moment, these roles are mostly held by women), this lifestyle is unappealing, if not impossible.
So what if we reframed the debate? How could a Parliament work differently? For starters, could sitting weeks be made much more efficient by cutting down processes like question time as they have in the UK? It’s a separate issue, but I would suggest that people yelling at each other and making jokes at each other’s expense is another reason we have so few women seeking these roles. Of course there will always be a requirement for Parliamentarians to be in Canberra, and I don’t underestimate the value of face to face debates, but I have no doubt that we could reduce the requirement to be physically present and away from home. The very fact that in 2015, there were the same number of days where Parliamentarians are required to be physically present as there was in 1903 suggests we haven’t capitalized on technology. Could at least some of the inquiries be held via video link? Could at least some of the caucuses and meetings be teleconferences? No company still operates the way it did pre GFC flying executives around the country on a weekly basis – so why does our Parliament? The model was inherited as part of the Westminster system and hasn’t been updated to take into consideration modern technology or expectations of work. Surely it is time for a rethink?
Still today, the single biggest indicator of whether a country will have equality in their Parliament is the introduction of quotas. Quotas for seats, or for candidate numbers is the single most effective way to ensure that women are represented in the highest office. I remain convinced that introducing a quota in Australia would see us reach equality – but alongside this type of policy, we still need to change the societal norms which have been barriers for so long.
It is not news that women still bear the majority burden of unpaid care work. This is true around the world, regardless of whether women are also in the paid workforce. But what we know is that where care roles are shared more equally, women are more likely to be in leadership roles in higher numbers – makes sense.
This issue isn’t just about women. Young men have different hopes and expectations than the generation before. They want to be more involved in care work. But too often they don’t have access to significant parental leave, employers are unsupportive of them taking time out and flexible work is not normalised in most Australian workplaces.
What if we reframed the debate to say what would society look like if men and women shared care work? For starters, our parental leave policies would look more like they do in Iceland and Sweden – where there is significant, paid time off for both men and women. Policy that drove a social change. Quality childcare would be affordable, and all models of childcare supported through government programs – including nannies and in home care. Of course these policies cost money, but they are an investment in the future. We would be educating young men about what they would need to do differently to achieve equality in the home, as well as at work. We would be sharing widely Sheryl Sandberg’s advice to ‘make your partner a real partner’.
This change also requires workplace flexibility. Today, most large companies have a flexible work policy, but the take up is very low, especially for men. Why? Because working flexibly is still seen as career limiting and there are too few role models in leadership positions demonstrating that flexible work can be done.
Among my girlfriends who’ve recently had babies, there’s an architect who’s been told that part-time work doesn’t really work in architecture, a public servant who has been told that despite all roles being flexible in her department, her role isn’t conducive to working flexibly so when she returns it must be full time at the office. One friend is looking for a new role and was asked ‘can you really give your time to this, given your situation?’ in the interview. And this is before their partners try to negotiate flexible work arrangements. These are just three examples, but it’s not hard to imagine why we have such a massive issue getting women into leadership roles.
True flexibility, where performance is measured by outcomes, not attendance, is one way to keep a diversity of people in the workforce and maximise use of Australia’s talent pool. True flexibility would allow both men and women to work in ways that best suit their needs – and optimise individual productivity. Flexibility, policy incentives and education would see more men taking on unpaid caring roles, allowing more women to pursue their careers. It’s not hard, it’s not new. We simply need to stop assuming it can’t be done.
Rather than critisising Howard for his comments, we need to reframe the debate and ask ‘how could we achieve a gender equal parliament’? Why don’t we call on our political leaders to spend some time and resources looking at a different model?
