Shock — early Saturday afternoon the new list of the Gillard ministry emerged and there was NO Minister for women, nor even a minister assisting … The word women was not there. After nearly 35 years of formal recognition of the need for someone to articulate the needs of women in the ministry, there was no mention! Was it because with a newly elected government, with a female PM, had decided we were equal? It could well be argued that political needs had changed since Liz Reid became the first women’s adviser to a PM in 1974, but not without discussion. Recent data on equal pay and fewer women in some top positions suggest that progress has maybe stalled and reversed.
Could it just be an error? Is this just a typo omission that would be quickly adjusted? I went back to the ALP media release, which was the only one online, and it was woman-free and still is on Sunday, as I write this.
Could it be possible that they had just forgotten about women in compiling the list? This would seem unthinkable given it is the first ministry of our first woman PM.
The only counter sign came after 6pm on Saturday when Kate Ellis put out a media release, via Tanya Plibersek’s email lists. Dated September 11, 2010 it said:
Kate Ellis has welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement that she will serve as Minister for Employment Participation and Child Care and as Minister for the Status of Women in the Gillard Labor Government. “I am honoured and excited to be taking on these new roles, as well as having continued responsibility for child care,” Ms Ellis said.
“The important policy work required to get Australians into work as our country continues to recover from the global recession, is a responsibility I take very seriously.”
Interesting language! Did she know about the change before it was apparently announced and why was she selected? Why move Women from Plibersek, who had a long-term connection to feminism to a more junior minister? As Ellis is also Child Care and Employment Participation, could it be that it’s all about more women in the workforce for increased productivity? Or maybe just a stuff up?
The change raises a range of other issues. The current Office for Women is in FaHCSIA as John Howard thought it belonged with families. Women’s groups objected to the shift when it happened because women were usually in the PM’s portfolio, maybe with a minister assisting. The placement of the office in a co-ordinating department (PM&C) was seen as crucial because it could then be consulted on and comment on cabinet and budget issues. The move to a line department was seen as diminishing its influence and it did.
Labor left it there, partly because Plibersek was a junior minister through her Housing portfolio but we were not really pleased. The minister was, however, someone with good relationships with the sector and respected, even when we disagreed. She worked hard on many issues and made some good gains, though losing Jenny Macklin is not such a problem as she put sole parents on income management.
However, as Ellis’ other responsibilities do not fit the FaHCSIA cabinet portfolio, who will be the cabinet representative? Child Care is now the responsibility of Peter Garrett and Employment Participation will be under Chris Evans.
This should be the time for the re-placement of the office into Prime Minister and Cabinet and making this area part of the PM’s portfolio. After all, women are half the voters and regions have many women in them with particular problems.
Good public policies require diverse inputs to ensure that they reflect the widest possible evidence base. Privileging the extra input of the women’s perspectives is still necessary because there are still only four women in a cabinet of 20 and a further two in outer ministry of 10. So no one can claim 20% is gender equality.
Well said, Eva – while I am pleased to see that the ALP appears mature enough to have a female leader and PM this in no way changes the status of the other 11 million or so women and girls in Australia.
The PM’s response to a question by Barrie Cassidy on Insiders on Sunday morning disturbed me. She implied that now that there is a female PM that the role of advisor on women would be ‘different’.
I hope she doesn’t think that just because she is PM that suddenly Australian men will stop beating their partners, raping girlfriends, strangers and children, or sexually harrassing and discriminating against women in the workplace. They will not. Nor will industries start paying female employees the same as they pay men, nor will advertisers stop sexualising children in advertising to make money. I could go on and on.
When her parliamentary colleagues refer to a woman’s greatest gift not as her intellect, her capabilities, her contribution to society or her role as childbearer, but the state of her hymen, how can she possibly think that parliamentary decisions are going to be gender neutral? Especially when the independents who are going to have such sway over decisions are all men.
Given the hositlity to an ALP government by NewsLtd any policy that so much as mentions gender will incite accusations of a feminazi taking over the country. More than ever, she needs an experienced and knowledgeable minister able to not just advise, but provide the research, evidence base and rational arguement that will be needed if we are to truly address gender inequality in this country.
Eva Cox frequently writes well thought through research based articles which enlighten and educate.
This beat-up from the 60’s and 70’s shows another side – a strongly partisan warrior for the femocracy.
Australia needs a Federal Ministry for Women about as much as it needs one for left-handed underwater basket weavers.
I know that I will be flogged by all the usual suspects for saying this, but why bother? There is so much to be gained simply by denying that gender has anything to do with entitlement. That’s where antidiscrimination is at. I certainly support effective and continuing action against discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion and the like. Support this article? No, not me, not any longer.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
I share your concerns Eva Cox. While the issue of gender equality, women’s issues in all there complexities seem so straight forward and in focus publically to the point of boring men, they who felt not able to dismiss them (women’s issues) may now feel liberated to so do in order to make room for other pressing issues especially now that the big chief is a bird, so surely that’s all taken care off. And as a deployed ‘feeling’ prevailing rather than all the previous attention to an objective state of the matter on women it can easily affect the feelings of the girl PM herself in the same direction. We are all human and complex multifaceted feelings about an ‘issue’ such as women’s matters which always wears an emotional halo smudging its objective status can befall a change of state (as we might say in science) so you are right to focus your audience back to the hard objective reality as the 20% does so sharply.