Asking half the workforce to step back means limiting the economy's growth.
At the National Press Club in June, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson proposed dismantling paid parental leave, restructuring childcare funding, and introducing income splitting — policies that economists say would quietly reverse fifty years of progress toward women's financial independence and workforce participation. The proposals rest on a philosophy that government should step back from supporting working mothers, yet the evidence suggests that when women step back from the workforce, entire economies slow with them. What sounds like a return to simplicity carries the weight of a much older bargain — one that cost women decades to renegotiate.
- Hanson publicly questioned why employers should pay women who are not physically at work, framing paid parental leave as an economic absurdity rather than a structural support for gender equality.
- Economists responded with alarm, warning that severing women's financial ties to employers during childbearing years causes lasting career damage that compounds over a lifetime.
- The income-splitting proposal, dressed in the language of fairness, risks making women financially dependent on their partners — quietly dismantling the individual economic autonomy women have spent generations securing.
- Childcare advocates pushed back hard on Hanson's suggestion that qualifications are unnecessary, arguing that untrained carers and direct parent payments would introduce fraud, lower quality, and endanger children's development.
- One Nation's silence when asked about the government-funded parental leave scheme beginning July 1 left the party's full intentions unresolved — and the political stakes uncomfortably open.
On a Wednesday afternoon in June, Pauline Hanson stood before the National Press Club and questioned why employers should pay women on maternity leave at all. The One Nation leader went further, calling for income splitting to reduce household tax burdens and demanding that the $16 billion childcare system be dismantled in favour of payments going directly to parents. Economists heard the proposals and reached for the same word: retreat.
Leonora Risse, an associate professor of economics at Queensland University of Technology, explained that paid parental leave isn't simply a wage — it's the thread that keeps women connected to their careers during childbearing years. Sever it, and women lose ground they may never fully recover. Hanson's income-splitting idea drew similar concern: while it exists in countries like France and sounds equitable on the surface, Risse warned it could quietly erode the financial independence women have spent decades building, making them dependent on a partner's cooperation rather than their own income stream.
Independent economist Silvia Griselda widened the lens. Women are, on average, more educated than men. Policies that push them out of the workforce don't just harm individual women — they shrink the economy, slow productivity, and create skills gaps that would likely need to be filled through increased immigration. The arithmetic was unsparing.
The childcare proposals drew their own sharp rebuttal. Caroline Croser-Barlow of The Front Project rejected Hanson's suggestion that childcare workers don't need degrees, comparing it to hiring an unlicensed plumber. She also flagged that direct payments to parents — rather than to providers — carry serious fraud risk and could compromise the safety standards that protect young children.
When asked whether One Nation would support the government's 26-week paid parental leave scheme beginning July 1, the party did not respond. Griselda offered a plain summary of what the proposals, taken together, would mean: a philosophy in which government withdraws, mothers stay home, and the economy quietly contracts — in the short run and the long.
Pauline Hanson stood before the National Press Club on a Wednesday afternoon in June and made a case that economists say could unwind fifty years of hard-won progress for working mothers. The One Nation leader questioned why employers should pay women during maternity leave if those women aren't at work. She went further, calling for income splitting that would allow families to combine their earnings and split the tax burden across two thresholds—a policy designed, she suggested, to encourage one parent to stay home. She also demanded an overhaul of the childcare system, which currently costs the government about $16 billion annually, saying it had spiraled out of control and that money should go directly to parents rather than to providers.
The proposals landed like a stone in still water. Leonora Risse, an associate professor of economics at Queensland University of Technology, said the ideas represented a retreat to an earlier era when women had far fewer choices and the gender pay gap was wider still. It wasn't just about money, Risse explained. Paid parental leave allows women to maintain their connection to the workforce during their child-bearing years, which keeps them in the job market long-term and improves overall productivity. When women can stay attached to their employers and their careers, they don't lose ground. They don't fall behind. They don't have to rebuild from scratch when they return.
Hanson's income-splitting proposal carried its own risks. The policy exists in countries like France, and the idea sounds fair on the surface: combine household income, split it between two tax-free thresholds, and reduce the tax burden. But Risse warned that it could quietly erode women's financial independence. Over decades, gender equality has advanced partly because women gained the right to their own bank accounts, their own income streams, their own financial autonomy. Income splitting could reverse that, making women dependent on their partners' cooperation for access to household money.
Silvia Griselda, an independent economist, took a broader view. If policies actively discourage women from working, she said, Australia would face a skills shortage. Women are, on average, more educated than men. Asking half the workforce to step back from employment means limiting the economy's growth and productivity. The gap would have to be filled somehow, likely through immigration. The math was simple: fewer workers meant slower growth.
Hanson's critique of the childcare system drew sharp pushback from Caroline Croser-Barlow, chief executive of The Front Project, an early learning advocacy group. Hanson had questioned why childcare workers needed degrees when she had raised four children without a university education. Croser-Barlow's response was direct: you wouldn't hire a plumber without knowing the plumbing code, so why would you let untrained people care for children whose brains are still developing? She also flagged the practical problems with Hanson's proposal to pay parents directly instead of funding providers. Direct payments carried high fraud risk and could compromise safety and quality standards.
When Guardian Australia asked One Nation whether it would continue supporting the government-funded paid parental leave scheme—which offers 26 weeks at the national minimum wage starting July 1—the party did not respond. The silence was telling. Griselda summed up the cumulative effect of the proposals: they amounted to a philosophy that taxes should be lower, that government shouldn't pay for parental leave or childcare, and that mothers should stay home instead. In the short run and the long run, she said, that would limit the economy. The question now was whether these ideas would gain traction in Australian politics, or whether the warnings from economists would hold them at bay.
Notable Quotes
Questioning these policies is winding back the clock to many decades back, where it wasn't an even playing field, and the gender gap was much wider.— Leonora Risse, associate professor of economics at Queensland University of Technology
If you're asking half of the workforce to not work, it means we are limiting the growth and the productivity of the Australian economy.— Silvia Griselda, independent economist
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter whether parental leave is paid by employers versus the government?
Because it changes whether women can afford to come back to work. If you're not paid during leave, you're losing income for months. That's a real financial hit, especially for lower-income families. It also signals to employers that women are less reliable workers, which affects hiring and promotion decisions long after they return.
But Hanson's point seems to be: why should a business pay someone who isn't working?
That's a fair question on its surface, but it misses how parental leave actually works in a competitive economy. Employers offer paid leave to attract and keep talented people. It's an investment in retention. If only government pays, businesses have no incentive to hold a woman's job open or welcome her back smoothly. She becomes a liability instead of an asset.
What about the income-splitting idea? That sounds like it's trying to help families.
It does sound helpful, but it has a hidden cost. If you combine household income and split taxes, you're making one person's financial security depend on staying married and staying in the household. Women lose the ability to make independent financial decisions. That's a step backward, even if it reduces the tax bill.
Is the childcare concern legitimate? Should we really require degrees for childcare workers?
The question isn't whether degrees are necessary—it's what happens without standards. Children's brains develop rapidly in those early years. Trained workers know how to recognize developmental delays, how to create safe environments, how to respond to trauma. Without that knowledge, you're gambling with children's futures. And direct payments to parents instead of providers? That opens the door to fraud and makes it harder to ensure anyone is actually checking on the children's safety.
So the real worry is that these policies push women out of the workforce?
Exactly. And not just women—the whole economy. If you discourage half your educated workforce from working, you shrink your talent pool. You create skills shortages. You have to import workers from elsewhere just to keep things running. It's a self-defeating strategy.