Chasing the Norm

Australian academic and blogger on politics, international relations, and culture

The soft bigotry of Australian politics

This sentence caught my attention over the morning coffee:

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh will be become the first female elected to the position of state premier in Australia if she retains office in an election to be held on March 21.

This is apparently thought significant by our unnamed correspondent, despite the fact that Rosemary Follett (ACT), Kate Carnell (ACT) and Clare Martin (NT) have all won elections from opposition over the last 18 years.

This reflects two of the soft bigotries that exist in Australian politics: That Territories dont count, and Women are something new in politics.

women-in-politics2
First the states: Newspapers and politicians seem the only ones who actually think in terms of their own state, or the states as apart from the territories. Everyone feels the need to belong somewhere, but Australia’s states occupy a no-mans land these days between our townships (witness the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry) and our united allegiance as Australians. I can understand a NSW premier trying to talk up the advantages of their own state over others; but that is a show for the media, and doesn’t reflect the country and way australians view the country. Its bad enough territories get less senate representation, weird HOR seat allocations and are irrelevant at referendums, lets drop the pretense that leading a state is somehow a greater honour or tougher gig than leading a territory.

Now to my main point: The election of Bligh (looking a certainty, abet with a reduced majority), will not be a milestone in Australian politics or gender relations in this country. It will tell us nothing about the publics willingness to elect women, nor give renewed hope to those like Gillard or Bishop who long to be the first female PM.
Australian’s already elect women aplenty, it is now a question of timing, luck and talent for who rises and falls. To suggest otherwise, seems to me more evidence of a private worry about the weakness of women as politicians, than a concern about male misogyny. Women undoubtedly do it tougher in politics, but they already win and take on leadership positions, and reducing every individuals setback to wider causes is its own form of soft bigotry. The main problems seem to lie more in the media’s superficial approach to female politicians (can they be mothers & politicians -or why didn’t they have kids- is their make up on right every single second of the day, what kind of clothes are they wearing) than the actual political parties which have women throughout and don’t change their behavior in attacking/defending other politicians on the basis of gender.

Thus, while the Academic research shows that the ALP’s quota for female candidates in winnable seats has been relatively successful and encouraged other parties to select more women for seats, I would argue that it is nearing the end of its usefulness. (On principle I think all affirmative action should have sunset clauses, but it is to be judged on a case by case basis)

As adopted in 1981, and last updated in 2007 the ALP’s National Constitution requires that:

Public Office Preselection
(c) Preselections for public office positions at a State and federal level shall comply with the
affirmative action model in this rule 10(c). PRINCIPLES
(i) The intention of this rule is to produce an outcome where not less than 40% of
seats held by Labor will be filled by women
, and not less than 40% by men (“the
minimum target”).
(iii)The remaining 20% of the seats held by Labor may be filled by candidates of
either gender.

The problem I have with this approach is that Legislatures are supposed to represent the people, not be representative of them. This is why we don’t simply hand over seats on the basis of gender, age, race, religion levels within the community. Instead we seek to elect the best and most capable, who can understand the full range of issues faced within the community. Whilst a situation of no female representatives (or the currently appalling situation of no Indigenous MP’s/Senators) is unacceptable, Affirmative action should only be used to ensure that the path is open, not that it is well trod. Women currently hold in Government the positions of Deputy PM, Health minister, Climate Change minister, Age Care, Youth & Sport, and in opposition those of Foreign Affairs, Finance, and Immigration (Plus Parliamentary Secretaries on both sides). No young girl who is serious about a political career could fail to notice the many women now in top positions in parliament and the possibility of they too ascending to the very top. They don’t need quota’s to get there, and such systems having done their job need to be retired.

« Previous post

4 ResponsesLeave one →

  1. In case you needed any more justification for your closing statements, a quote from the Global Gender Gap Report 2008:
    “New Zealand (5) and Australia (21) continue to
    perform well in the rankings. Both countries have fully
    closed the gap on the educational attainment subindex and
    both perform well on economic participation indicators.
    Between 2007 and 2008, both countries show gains on
    economic participation, educational attainment and political
    empowerment.”

    The actual stats page for Australia shows that the political ratio is not yet equal, but looking at the graph for tertiary education (I want to call it ‘above equal’ but that sounds odd), I’d wager that there is a gradual upward trend, though.

    I’m not clear on exactly what the quotas are, but I think I’d have to disagree with you that they should be retired, at least just yet. The women currently in the positions you mentioned always strike me as people that have had to really fight for their place. I’m aware that much of that fighting was probably done earlier in their career, but I think that having quotas in place keeps the issue in the relevant people’s minds—at least until the current generation of old men have shuffled on.

  2. Tim C

     /  February 24, 2009

    I would say that on the whole I agree with your article. But I would also like to bring up a few points that I think it fails to cover.

    I am sure that internal to the parties there is gender equality (or at least something resembling it) and that people with skill and talent of both genders are rewarded and moved up within the system.

    My issue comes about due to the fact that elected roles need to be voted on by the public, this is the basis of democracy, but we still live in a society were sexism (at least at a passive level) is still happening. There are people that will not vote for a woman no matter how qualified or skilled they are relative to another candidate.

    Sure we may have equality at an institutionalised level, but not at a societal level. And that makes me angry.

  1. Day 1 Blog Posts / QldElection09.com
  2. Chasing the Norm » Blog Archive » Media Myths