Clive Palmer has criticised the government’s paid parental leave policy and commented that it’s merely a way of ensuring the “Prime Minister’s chief of staff [Peta Credlin] can receive a massive benefit when she’s pregnant”. That comment is insensitive, ignorant, unwarranted and unduly personal.
Having your fertility or family plans discussed in parliament is an ignominy no one deserves, let alone someone who has publicly endured an unsuccessful attempt to conceive via IVF as Credlin has.
Palmer’s observation is gendered and overlooks the glaring reality that paid parental leave will almost always deliver the father of any child a “massive benefit” too. In that regard his comments are sexist. He argues they’re not and is refusing to apologise.
”I’m saying that I’m concerned that she has been able to exercise that influence on the PM and I believe as chief of staff, regardless of whether she is a woman or man, she exercises undue influence on government policy to the detriment of many of the elected members of Parliament,” he said.
It is entirely regrettable Palmer couched his attack on the paid parental leave policy in such personal terms. Aside from being shamefully hurtful he has undermined his credibility in engaging in a meaningful conversation about paid parental leave, which is desperately necessary. He has also, regrettably, weakened his authority to argue an otherwise valid and important point about the government.
Yesterday Palmer made this point in parliament: “How can it be that there are so many capable and competent members of the government on the backbench and such a lack of representation in Cabinet? This is a matter of serious concern.”
Indeed it is. The trouble with having a single female in any senior leadership team is not merely the way it looks or the message it reinforces. The real issue is the ongoing repercussions that stem from a homogenous group of people making decisions. Those repercussions are greater and linger longer when the group in question is the government.
Last year, on the ABC’s Q&A the founding chair of the Women’s Leadership Institute Carol Schwartz made this observation about the then-newly comprised Cabinet. “My concern is this. Can a cabinet of 18 men and 1 woman make the right decisions for our economy? All the research has shown that diverse groups of people make the best decisions. Even a homogenous group of people with very high IQs can’t make decisions as well as a more diverse group. I am really concerned we’re not going to get the best decisions and outcomes we need for the economy, the community and business as a result.”
The budget provides a fairly persuasive indication that Schwartz’s concerns were well-founded. Diversity delivers better decisions; it is a point that needs to be made, and made again, in relation to the government. I welcome any and every politician taking up this cause and arguing it because we’d all benefit. Cliver Palmer was right in saying the composition of Cabinet is a serious concern. How seriously appalling that he marred such an important and valid point with his personal attack on Credlin. Is it really so much to ask that our politicians argue the points and the policies rather than the people?