The best thing one can say about Scott Morrison’s Titanic deckchair reshuffle — sorry, cabinet reshuffle — is that at least we didn’t get Stuart Robert as home affairs minister.
For days “well-placed sources” in the Canberra gallery had spread that move widely, apparently softening us up for such a controversial promotion. Robert’s only apparent qualification for such a powerful role was that he’s one of Morrison’s besties, having shared a house with him in Canberra and being the key numbers man who delivered the prime ministership for his mate.
Given Robert’s long and dubious track record he’s lucky to be in the ministry at all (though you could also say that about many of his cabinet colleagues). He was dumped by Malcolm Turnbull and resurrected by Morrison, but the internal pushback to the Home Affairs idea meant he was given Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business instead.
Some think even that is too much, but to be fair, given Robert’s own family and small business wheeling and dealing, it could be interesting.
The Home Affairs vacancy was created by the less controversial move of Peter Dutton to Defence to replace Linda Reynolds. (As I wrote in Crikey on February 17 — two days after the Brittany Higgins story broke and even before the Reynolds “lying cow” comments sealed her fate — this was always the game plan it would seem.)
Replacing tough guy ex-cop Dutton in Home Affairs with a female — Karen Andrews — was not only good optics. She’s a former engineer who showed smarts in the Industry, Science and Technology portfolio, and she was the first to break ranks over gender quotas last week. This, of course, prepares her for the inevitable undermining that she is not “tough” enough for the role. We’ll see.
As for the rest of the patronising female-friendly appointments — what can you say?
For a start it was merely promoting and giving some silly new titles to the females who were already in the tent. These women have had little impact until now, so I’m not sure what’s expected to change — or change for anything longer that a couple of news and polling cycles.
As I wrote last week, the women have belatedly found their voice in this government — but is the spin about having more women in cabinet really about quantity over quality?
To put it in terms our footy-loving PM would understand: he does not have a very deep bench.
Returning the embarrassingly useless Melissa Price into cabinet says it all. As does Michaela Cash as attorney-general. And then there his brief “co-prime minister”, Marise Payne, who has been such a waste of space as minister for women. She has not just been absent in the role. She’s been invisible. Not just a disappointment but a disgrace. Yet she now has “leadership” on all women’s issues.
Being charitable, she probably has a big enough job trying to follow in Julie Bishop’s big heels as foreign affairs minister, so perhaps the new expanded role might have been better given to someone else.
Recognising Payne’s “demanding job”, Morrison expanded the government team focused on women’s issues to include such ridiculous titles as “minister for women’s economic security” for Superannuation Minister Jane Hume — who by rights should have already been doing that.
Joining the team will be arch conservative Senator Amanda Stoker, who is also tipped to move to the lower house to replace Andrew Laming when he finally steps down at the next election.
Like all these women, she will support the offensive Laming staying in Parliament until then because it works politically for Chief Bloke Morrison. And for them too, presumably.
How good is Scott Morrison and his newfound passion to elevate women? Write to letters@crikey.com.au and let us know. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
What is the point of elevating women when the women are just as bad if not worse than the men anyway. LNP stooges one and all whose only interest is keeping their seats and ridiculous pay packets. Still it keeps me hopeful that people MIGHT just seeing through these charlatans….
And what is the guarantee that “more women in parliament” aren’t going to deliver repeats? When the pre-selection system is like it is, with “merit” being a lesser criteria.
More women for sure – if gender number equality is the goal : but not for the sake of “better governance”.
Good women can be just as good as good men
And bad women can be just as bad, be just as incompetent and play politics just as ruthlessly, as bad men.
Pre-selection systems don’t discriminate.
Having equal numbers of men and women tends to stop workplaces being a boys club, and that is one of the aims. It doesn’t stop incompetence though.
And that means in positions of equal power, not just handmaidens.
“Better governance”?
I agree 100% with ‘beth, “What is the point of elevating women when the women are just as bad if not worse than the men anyway….”
100percent men or 50 percent women, even if all are incompetent or shonky. Which is more likely to be a boys club with all the behaviour that goes with it? That is, if we are talking about culture rather than competence.
Actually delete the ‘rather than competence’.
But, implicit among elements of this movement, is the premise that “more women will fix everything (including governance)”, which I don’t agree with. Again, women can be just as crook as men. “Culture” and competence – it’s just that women may not be as inclined to this “lewd, perverted culture” that seems to be the “hobby” of some men, but not all of us.
And “bullying” has no gender. Ask my wife, who works in an all female environment, as a “fly on the wall” 15 hours/week office casual.
In politics :-
1) Last night, 7:30 – when Kohler proposed that 700,000(?) Australians had cleaned out their super funds over Covid, Hume (who is ideologically opposed – just like that large lump of her donors – to we little people having “all that” super, or anything else they “haven’t earned” to tide us through our dotage) took exception to the term “cleaned out”; quite happy that they spent it and have bugger all left in those accounts – and have to start all over again, building that nest egg, in case they make it to retirement.
The night before, she wanted to compare our pension with “internationally”? But where do we sit in terms “the cost of living” with all those other countries? So for her, we’d be fine on “our” pension, if only we just lived in those countries with a lower cost of living?
What sort of attitude of hers does that reflect toward the less well-off?
2) What sort of empathy for her fellow Australians (women and men) was the independently well-off Julia Banks (lauded as “poor, hard done-by and bullied”) getting at when she defended “our” welfare when she said she could “live on 40 bucks a day knowing that the government is supporting me with Newstart looking for employment” – what “employment”? “Underemployment” with the possibility that your “new employer” could be ripping you off, if their conditions haven’t been stripped with the blessing of her and her government?
That sort of “poverty shaming/bullying” is all right/ignorable, because it was from her?
3) Jane Caro – The Drum, Monday – said that Ruston could do a whole lot more for women (and men) if she (and her government) raised the paltry amount that constitutes “welfare”, to above the poverty line.
But, implicit among elements of this movement, is the premise that “more women will fix everything (including governance)”, which I don’t agree with. Again, women can be just as crook as men. “Culture” and competence – it’s just that women may not be as inclined to this “lewd, perverted culture” that seems to be the “hobby” of some men (with associated delusions of power), but not all of us.
And “bu*lying” has no gender. Ask my wife, who works in an all female environment, as a “fly on the wall” 15 hours/week office casual.
In politics :-
1) Last night, 7:30 – when Kohler proposed that 700,000(?) Australians had cleaned out their super funds over Covid, Hume (who is ideologically opposed – just like that large lump of her donors – to we little people having “all that” super, or anything else they “haven’t earned” to tide us through our dotage) took exception to the term “cleaned out”; quite happy that they’d spent it and have bugger all left in those accounts – and have to start all over again, building that nest egg, in case they make it to retirement.
The night before, she wanted to compare our pension with “internationally”? But where do we sit in terms “the cost of living” with all those other countries? So for her, we’d be fine on “our” pension, if only we just lived in those countries with a lower cost of living?
What sort of attitude of hers does that reflect toward the less well-off?
2) What sort of empathy for her fellow Australians (women and men) was the independently well-off Julia Banks (lauded as “poor, hard done-by and bul*ied”) getting at when she defended “our” welfare when she said she could “live on 40 bucks a day knowing that the government is supporting me with Newstart looking for employment” – what “employment”? “Underemployment” with the possibility that your “new employer” could be ripping you off, if their conditions haven’t been stripped with the blessing of her and her government?
That sort of “poverty shaming/bul*lying” is all right/ignorable, because it was from her?
3) Jane Caro – The Drum, Monday – said that Ruston could do a whole lot more for women (and men) if she (and her government) raised the paltry amount that constitutes “welfare”, to above the poverty line.
To misquote Monty P. “What’s Payne ever done for women”?
Henderson and Allen – pair up to go on “Backsliders” to tell us all ‘what a great job Scotty’s doing, and will continue to do, for women’?
How much did Henderson gladly accept from Sports Rorts for those pools in her electorate – before she lost it?
“McKenzie”?
Cash and her “Chalice of Blood” spray of Wong?
Ley – when she’s no jetting off to the Gold Coast on our $tax to buy a unit – what a boon to the Environment she’s been?
And now, even Karen Andrews is in a frame?
My comment was made as a response to the allegations of rape, sexual harassment and general sexism that women staffers and politicians say prevails in Parliament House – as it does in other male dominated workplaces such as the police.
Once you get relatively equal numbers of women to men in a workplace, at all levels, men over time get used to it and see women as fellow workers and colleagues and the gender dynamic in the workplace changes for the better and becomes a lot more civil for everyone. Just as getting rid of all female typing pools got rid of what could be a rather bitchy atmosphere among the women who worked there.
I saw both these things happen over the years in my workplace and for the better. People are still people and there’ll still be whinging about the workplace and there’ll still be some sexism (male styles of management being more valued than female styles) but more equal.
As for the women in Morrison’s cabinet, they are still neo-liberals and so won’t be pushing for the sort of changes which would make a difference to most women.
At least it’s a way of challenging the patriarchy.
With what? A conservative matriarchy?
Unfortunately these women wont change anything for the better.
When ‘merit’ is defined as ‘thinks like a bloke’, then merit will not improve the lot of women. Funny how all the douchebags who have done well all think they got there on merit, hard working self made men, one and all.
But they’re not all men.
How can anything “improve” with repeat prescriptions of the calibre of this sort of ideological, conservative female political animal?
Stuart Robert’s career as a minister – one of life’s great mysteries.
Lol!!
He apparently did very well at baptising people Israel, though. Maybe he could go back there, although I thought only real Ministers in real churches could baptise people.
In Israel, typing too fast d’uh.
Leaving Payne as Minister for Women is inexplicable. The claims that she has not done anything may be justified but overlook the possibility that she already has a full-time job on her hands as Foreign Minister. Bishop, Rudd, Downer, Evans and all the rest did not have extra responsibilities loaded on them as Foreign Minister – it’s a full-time job in itself.
Anyone hoping that putting the Liberals’ equivalent of the Marching Girls of the 50s into the spotlight will make any difference should note that while personnel is important, selecting the right personnel and nurturing the right organisational culture is even more critical.
And on those rocks this new SS LookingAfterTheSheilas founder.
… will founder.
… flounder?
… will founder and flounder?
Ships ‘founder‘ on rocks, fish (and many people) ‘flounder‘ on dry beaches.
Thanks Ag. I didn’t look far enough on the dictionary entry for that word.
“Marise Payne… a waste of space as minister for women… absent… invisible…”
Yes. I’ve been trying to think of a reasonable defence for Payne’s prolonged absence over these weeks. Perhaps she takes the view that all this trouble is caused by men and it is therefore none of her business. More charitably, perhaps she really does have the decent principles that some commentators ascribe to her, and so she does not trust herself to maintain decorum if she begins to say what she really thinks. But most likely she is exactly what she seems to be: worse than useless, like so many of her colleagues.
There is somebody much worse than useless and that is somebody who is actively criminal and evil.
Thank god there is nobody like that in the cabinet.
Boing! The pointer on my sarcasm meter just went up to 11, Nige.
There is also the possibility that Payne is as unimpressed by Morrison as many others and cringes from appearing at pressers with him – where she would have him mansplaining every statement she made. It is pretty clear he doesn’t “get it” and maybe she does.
One commentator – I can’t remember who – said that Payne used to be a lot more vocal. Perhaps she is hanging in there for the return of a more moderate Liberal although that doesn’t seem to be anywhere in sight at the moment.
I thought it was self-evident, aside from the odd conflict (and they all have been very “odd”), the LNP doesn’t do International.
So in their own eyes a female Foreign Minister can also clean the kitchen when not jetsetting. 😉
One of the least-remarked changes is Dutton to defence. It could be highly significant. He has been able to skew the Home Affairs policy and administrative decisions in directions that are secretive, repressive and xenophobic, not to mention right wing as evidenced by the recent contortions over not using the term ‘far Right extremism’. In that portfolio he has been the big dog with a weak opposition and a split cross bench. But in Defence one suspects there are much bigger and better informed security partners who will hedge in his room to move, not to mention Defence Force chiefs who aren’t public servants to just be directed. And of course who wouldn’t pay to be a fly on the wall to see how well Mike Pezullo’s blustering briefings go down with new Home Affairs minister, Karen Andrews.
I don’t believe Home Affairs should continue to exist, after all it was created for Turnbull to maintain Dutton’s support.
It also places too much power in the hands of one minister and one department head.
Be interesting to see what happens to Pezzullo. Word around Canberra for some time has been that Frances Adamson wants to move on from DFAT Secretary job around mid-year, creating a vacancy there. Greg Moriarty, currently Defence Secretary, started in DFAT and enjoys an excellent reputation there, so it would be a natural fit to return him to Casey House. And then Pezzullo can realise his long-held ambition/obsession to becomes Defence Secretary.
Pezzullo is a far right extremist, which pretty much guarantees his position and that ASIO won’t touch him.
I’m told the people at Home Affairs refer to him as Kim Jun Pezz.
Pezz the Dispensable
Tut tut. In ASIO’s current vernacular there is no such thing as far-right extremism, didn’t you get the memo?
That’s the point, SSR.
Mr. Pezzullo is a perceived danger to democracy.
It is all a very great worry, Brian. A strange new Australia is emerging and it is not attractive.
Xi Jinping wants to convince the world that open liberal democracy is not the way to go, that an authoritarian model works better, and the leadership ( for want of a better word) of Australia seems to have endorsed that message.
Chinese Communist Capitalism is outplaying Neo-Liberal Capitalism at its own game..
Maybe… when we hear stories of Chinese workers having to piss in a bottle or crap in a bag.
According to HURUN, after the Year of Plague 2020, China now has MORE $billionaire$ (910) than the Benighted States (696).
Another fun fact is that the total in China increased by a third in the last 12 months.
Yes indeed ..And that new Australia is building itself on out & outright inequity & inequality..
“…how well Mike Pezullo’s blustering briefings go down…”
From what I have heard, Mike wasn’t particularly well thought of in Defence either.
So let’s hope the “go down” refers to the corridor and front door, in the time dishonoured manner of “early retirement” and going to “spend more time with the family”.
I wonder how many in the senior Uniformed echelons of Defence are considering early retirement. 😉
During his (very) brief stint as CEO Customs – after a couple of sideways transfers – he was noted for his ability to rise without trace, like the hot air balloon that he is.
This article states that transferring Peter Dutton from Home Affairs to Defence was less controversial . Au contraire in one of your own articles only a few days ago it was pointed out that in Home Affairs his massive incompetence can only result in the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars. Remember how he bought so many patrol boats “to keep our borders safe” he had no funds left to buy fuel for them or personnel to person them? Scarily his incompetence and sheer laziness in Defence can cost Australia billions of dollars.
Keane is, I believe, subtly making the point that putting Defence in the hands of a blundering fool who for years has wasted billions and ignored all principles of good administration and procurement raises no eyebrows; he’s right, there’s no sign of a controversy, though of course there should be. We have been governed by such folk since the time of the First Fleet, it all seems quite normal.