Gender bender
WHEN it comes to the non-conservative %26#151;
“progressive” seems to be the term adopted increasingly since the
change of government %26#151; side of politics, a natural impulse
towards self-destruction is never very far from the surface. Amid
the generally positive reviews of the performance of Labor’s new
Speaker, Harry Jenkins, in the past few weeks, there has been no
reference to the vehemence and determination of a number of his
caucus colleagues this time two years ago to shaft him in his seat
of Scullin, which covers outer north-eastern suburbs including
Lalor and Mill Park.
Jenkins only just managed to hold on to his preselection in the
face of the onslaught from sections of the ALP that later in 2006
went to the barricades in a failed attempt to stop Kevin Rudd
becoming leader. They saw Kim Beazley as a much better bet. How
quickly these things are forgotten. Of course, that’s all too
typical ALP stuff %26#151; the internecine plotting and game-playing
that’s characterised the party pretty much since its inception. But
the spending of great stores of energy on specific, totemic issues
and events %26#151; sometimes to great effect, sometimes not %26#151;
is also a speciality of the wider progressive movement. The
numerous expressions of high dudgeon this week regarding the
selection of 10 co-chairs of next month’s 2020 Summit by Rudd and
his friend and uber-facilitator, University of Melbourne
vice-chancellor Glyn Davis, were a good example of just how
delicately every national Labor leader must choose his or her
steps. This refined poise is necessary because of the delicacy of
the feelings among some in the extended family of the social and
political Left.
The charge against Rudd, as it was channelled through the media,
was that he was just one more grey-haired, middle-aged bloke in a
suit who, along with Davis, was only interested in the thoughts of
other grey-haired, middle-aged blokes in suits. Only one woman, the
award-winning actress and theatre director Cate Blanchett, was
included on the independent steering committee for the summit. Even
Blanchett’s inclusion was a problem for some critics. She’s
well-known, a star, so she could well have been chosen because
she’s a “name”. Other criticisms of Blanchett’s selection
questioned her suitability on the grounds that she hasn’t done much
more than act. In other words, echoing the attitudes of a number of
prominent feminists towards Margaret Thatcher years ago, she’s a
woman, but not the right sort of woman.
The paucity of women on the summit steering committee was one of
the biggest stories of the week, which goes to prove yet again the
aphorism about the emptiest vessel always making the loudest noise.
What is the 2020 Summit? Above all, it is a device dreamt up by the
Prime Minister to shake the upper reaches of the federal public
service out of the subservient torpor into which it had slipped
during the latter years of the Howard government.
Rudd has told colleagues and friends that as a former senior
public servant, he was disturbed upon taking office to find what he
regarded as a serious lack of dynamism, energy and creativity
within the bureaucracy. After years of being told what to think by
Howard government ministers and of recasting their jobs from being
independent and alternative sources of policy advice to what
amounted to spear-carriers for the Coalition, many public servants
%26#151; by Rudd’s reckoning %26#151; had lost the plot.
One of the aims of the 2020 Summit has been to subtly threaten
the public service, to say: you guys are supposed to generate ideas
for us and if you won’t do that, I’ll go outside to get them. This
is why the summit is, in relative terms, so minuscule in scale.
It’s not even scheduled for the working week. It’s running for a
weekend and the participants will have to meet their own
accommodation and travel costs. As a government enterprise, it is
definitely not a first order priority.
Then there are the practicalities. One thousand people will
participate, split up into 10 groups of 100. It’s assumed that each
participant will have something potentially useful to contribute.
That would mean 50 people speaking per day in each group. By the
way, the list of attendees has not yet been drawn up, so how it
stacks up on the gender-balance front won’t be known for a
while.
On the broader question of Rudd and his approach to women, if
the sort of attacks launched against him by parts of Labor’s own
constituency this week are a sign of what he can expect over a
matter as low-ranking as the 2020 Summit, then his Government’s
performance does need to be assessed. Along with maintaining a
robust economy he’s nominated education, industrial relations,
health and climate change as the key policy areas %26#151; and
unfortunately for the language we will have to get used to hearing
him describe them as “core business” %26#151; in which Labor must
deliver.
His deputy is Julia Gillard, the nation’s first female deputy
prime minister. Rudd has given Gillard the biggest set of portfolio
priorities %26#151; workplace relations, education and social
inclusion %26#151; a single minister has enjoyed since Gough Whitlam
and Lance Barnard briefly ran a two-man cabinet in 1972. Beyond her
responsibilities as a minister, Gillard has, after only two weeks
of the new parliament, staked out a vital political role within the
Government. She has inherited the Peter Costello-Paul Keating role,
rolling out a combination of quips and putdowns to act as the
Government’s chief “performer” in the house. Again, this is a first
for a woman politician at the federal level.
Back to Rudd. His climate change minister is a woman. His health
minister is a woman. Indeed, you have to wonder how many of those
fulminating about the appalling gender imbalance of the 2020 Summit
independent steering committee noticed this week that Rudd and
Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced the make-up of the 10-member
National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, which will develop
a long-term reform plan for the country’s health system. The head
of the commission (four women, six men) is Dr Christine Bennett, a
pediatrician.
The work of the reform commission is the genuine article. What
it recommends, if it’s adopted, will have a massive influence over
the quality of life for the vast bulk of Australians for
generations to come. Compared with that, the 2020 Summit is a bit
of flummery that may or may not produce a handful of decent ideas.
Which do you consider really serious business?
Those who suffer a genuine lack of opportunity in our society
don’t need greater representation by middle-class high achievers in
a steering committee for a two-day talkfest, they need a real
commitment to change, real policies and the shaking off of
tokenistic attitudes redolent of the 1970s.
Shaun Carney is associate editor.
