We’re doomed to be governed by middle-aged men
There’s nothing wrong with middle-aged men, but if they’re the only ones left standing then our government is a hopelessly inaccurate reflection of real Australia, writes Sarrah Le Marquand.
Rendezview
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rendezview. Followed categories will be added to My News.
There are two scenarios that prompt a politician to cite “family reasons” by way of explanation when walking away from a parliamentary career.
The first occurs when the once promising prospects of an ambitious would-be PM or minister are annihilated by a scandal or party room reshuffle and the pollie in question is consumed with a sudden devotion to supervise homework and navigate a trolley around the aisles of their local supermarket.
It’s uncanny how often the implosion of a political career coincides with the belated yet curiously convenient realisation from a fallen-from-favour MP or senator that they have a family waiting for them at home. As far as excuses go, you might call it Canberra’s answer to the dog ate my homework.
MORE FROM SARRAH LE MARQUAND: Tell your daughters all men are bastards
The second scenario in which a politician explains their decision to quit as being down to “family reasons” is even more depressing: when it’s actually true.
The shock departure of Federal Industrial Relations Minister Kelly O’Dwyer, who announced over the weekend she will not recontest her seat at the looming federal election, is a case in point.
“I no longer want to consistently miss out on seeing my children when they wake up in the morning or go to bed at night and I want to know that when I am around, my time is not constantly disrupted,” she told reporters, before revealing that enduring a miscarriage at work while away from her family last year was also a contributing factor in her decision.
As one of the Liberal Party’s greatest assets, O’Dwyer is in no need of peddling disingenuous platitudes for her reason to move on. Hardworking and well regarded, a political liability she is not — even if her efforts in championing Australian women were never properly acknowledged by those who should have known better but begrudged her for being on the “wrong” side of politics.
Yet while mean-spirited partisan divisions might unfairly obscure the rightful recognition of O’Dwyer’s feminist achievements, there’s been near unanimous consensus — from both political friends and foes alike — that her decision is a sad indictment on the composition of our federal parliament.
MORE FROM SARRAH LE MARQUAND: It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum
Who will be left to represent us if the current system of government continues to prove incompatible with women? And, indeed, to anyone with a genuine desire to spend quality time with their family outside of election-campaign friendly photo opportunities?
With a recent study showing a steep decline in the number of teachers entering federal parliament over the past 30 years, only to be replaced by political staffers, it’s clear Canberra’s corridors of powers are less representative than ever.
How can we expect our political leaders to empathise with the challenges of the average Australian household when our legislation is drafted only by those shielded from the day-to-day realities of those very families?
And let’s be honest — when we admit that our system of government is hostile to parents, what we are really saying is that it’s hostile to mothers.
True, there are male parliamentarians occasionally willing to walk away from a career still in its prime to focus on family, but they are very much the exception.
The same weekend that O’Dwyer was dropping her bombshell, news broke that Barnaby Joyce is expecting another child — baby news that will bring him in line with Mike “Brady Bunch” Brady as a father of six.
And yet oddly enough there’s been no speculation that such demanding domestic responsibilities might force the former deputy prime minister to reconsider his still-burning political ambitions.
It’s a double-standard all too familiar to Julia Banks, who infamously defected from the Liberal Party to the crossbench at the end of last year and who sat down with Kerryn Phelps to speak to Stellar magazine this coming Sunday.
“My kids had just finished at the time when I ran for preselection and I was asked ‘Who’s going to look after your children when you’re in Canberra?’,” Banks recalled.
As Phelps wryly observed: “They don’t ask men that.”
So what’s the solution? In news that will no doubt incite hysteria among those still frothing at the mouth over a certain clumsily executed but otherwise perfectly harmless and well-intentioned razor-blade commercial, both Phelps and Banks believe the introduction of quotas would be an effective “reset mechanism” to counter the unconscious bias that surrounds the preselection of female candidates.
RELATED: Gillette’s critics are completely missing the point
“I believe parliament has a responsibility to put measures in to create an equal workplace, and that includes flexibility,” Banks argues. “That’s why I’m so passionate about childcare. Because childcare is the biggest anxiety for both parents if you’re both working.”
Unless there’s a serious rethink of the obstacles that prevent women from pursuing a parliamentary career, we’re destined to be governed eternally by middle-aged men in blue ties.
And no, there’s nothing wrong with middle-aged men or blue ties, but if the anti-family, anti-woman hallmarks of the modern political system means they are the only people left standing then we’re left with a hopelessly inaccurate snapshot of the country our elected parliamentarians purport to represent.
Let’s hope we reach a time when a politician — male or female — only has cause to cite “family reasons” during a resignation speech as a self-serving smokescreen and not because it’s actually the truth.
Sarrah Le Marquand is the editor-in-chief of Stellar magazine and the founding editor of RendezView.