Polls are the mother of invention

Even as the opposition leader Tony Abbott claws back ground in the polls and is lauded for 'cutting through' with his plain-speaking style, there is still the perception he has a 'woman problem'.

Last week's gaffe about housewives and ironing did not help. The comment was symptomatic of some outdated and patronising views with which women associate Abbott.

When in office, I had my own battles with Abbott on issues such as pregnancy counselling, terminations, and stem-cell policies.

But is the opposition leader's plan for a paid parental leave about to change all that?

In one of his more desirable flip-flops, Abbott has reworked his position on paid parental leave – last week he announced support for a six month scheme (as opposed to the federal government's 18 week scheme which starts next year).

Abbott is sketchy on the details and does lack credibility on this issue given he is such a late comer to the debate and once said "Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this government's dead body, frankly.”

But Abbott admits his "... thinking has moved on a bit”.

So is Abbott trying to modernise the Coalition on policies that affect families, or is he simply trying to appeal to both male and female voters desperate for a better work and family balance?

Is the Australian workplace one climate that Abbott wants to change so that women and men can access paid leave on the birth (and, I assume, adoption) of a child and thus, bring us into line with most OECD countries?

Australia is woefully behind on this issue. We are one of only two OECD countries without some form of paid leave on the birth of a child and around two thirds of Australian women have no access to paid maternity leave.

It is almost eight years since I tabled Australia's first paid maternity leave legislation (which I updated three years ago to incorporate Senate committee recommendations and keep pace with industrial relations law).

My model allowed for 14 weeks of government-funded leave at the minimum wage and for employer top ups. Essentially, it is the model recommended by the Productivity Commission (although for 18 weeks) and adopted by the federal government whose scheme is due to start in 2011.

So there is time for the Coalition to gazump it with a more generous model.

Dr Sharman Stone, Shadow Minister for the Status of Women, and her leader have emphasised the six month period of leave given that six months is the recommended time for breast-feeding.

There is an obvious biological imperative for paid leave, especially for mothers – they can spend that vital period with their newborn – and it recognises the physical demands of the latter stages of pregnancy, birth, recovery from birth as well as the establishment (where possible) of breast-feeding.

Biological reasons are fundamental, but so is a women's right to have time out of the workforce while she has a child and be able to return without disadvantage.

Paid leave also ensures that women, in particular, can maintain their workplace attachment (including superannuation and taxation) and that businesses don't lose productive employees, more and more of whom are women.

Most business get this. There's no shortage of business organisations – such as the Business and Professional Women (BPW), the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) and the Australian Industry Group (AIG) – that favour a government-mandated scheme. They have long understood that small and medium sized businesses could not cope with the impost.

Paid parental leave makes good business sense. Modelling by The Australia Institute has shown a paid parental leave scheme could pay for itself and create up to 9,000 new jobs.

Its report, Long overdue: The macroeconomic benefits of paid parental leave, estimates that the multiplier effects could reduce the net cost of a scheme to $225 million (as opposed to the Productivity Commission's $450 million costing). The paper concludes "...the additional government revenue from more women working will more than pay for the scheme when it matures.”

So it makes good business sense and it's good for work and family balance – but is it good politics?

If the blog and vox pop reactions are anything to go by, Abbott may be on a winner.

The coalition still has a way to go in improving its credentials with some female voters, both in terms of policy affecting women and in terms of its representation of women. Nonetheless, the number of women in the Liberal ranks has grown by one this year with Kelly O'Dwyer replacing Peter Costello in the seat of Higgins and she's been given the prime TV position behind her leader during Question Time.

Billed as a modern and moderate up-and-coming MP, last week she gave her first speech to the House of Representative in which she emphasised the changing nature of families and acknowledged women are often "the only, primary or co- bread-winner, whether by choice or necessity.”

These speeches are no longer called 'maiden' speeches – presumably to spare our blushes. Nonetheless they're still precious and I look forward to more policy among the coalition that reflects the important matters contained in Ms O'Dwyer's contribution.