Susie O’Brien: Quotas needed in Victorian public sector to give women fair go

WE need quotas to increase the number of women in the Victorian public sector. The idea will not be popular in some quarters, but men have been promoted for eons just because they are men, and no one seems to complain about that, writes Susie O’Brien.

WE need quotas to increase the number of women in the Victorian public sector.

The Citizen’s Jury is right. They were wise to suggest a 40:40:20 gender breakdown as part of the Victorian Government’s Gender Equity Bill.

The majority of jurors recommended the target be 40 per cent women, 40 per cent men, and 20 per cent flexible for all public sector positions, senior managers and executive roles.

MORE SUSIE O’BRIEN

GENDER QUOTAS AREN’T IDEOLOGY, THEY’RE MATH

We shouldn’t need quotas, but we do.

In an ideal world, women would be judged on their merits – just like those who oppose quotas say they are.

This would ensure women would have equal representation on all government and company boards.

However, until this is the case, quotas are needed to give women a fair go.

The majority of jurors recommended the target be 40 per cent women, 40 per cent men, and 20 per cent flexible. Picture: Stock image

This is not about giving women an unfair foot up. This is about equal representation leading to better decision making and better governance.

The Labor Party is reaping the benefits of having quotas for the preselection of women, with almost equal ratios of males and females.

The Liberal Party would do well to follow suit given that less than one in four of their MPs is female and the numbers are slipping all the time.

I know the idea of quotas will not be popular in some quarters. There are many people who say women should be judged on their merits and should not be appointed just because they are women.

However, the concept of merit is gendered, which means women are often not considered by men to be worthy candidates because they are women.

Shock jock Alan Jones is predictably anti-quota. Picture: AAP

It might be because they have different career paths or experience, or it might be just because they are not men with men’s interests and male contacts.

Leading the charge against quotas are the old white male brigade, including men like Sydney shock jock Alan Jones who pursued Australia’s first female Prime Minister Julia Gillard with such venom.

Such men tend to see one woman as a mistake, two as a conspiracy, and three as evidence they’re “destroying the joint”.

The assumption seems to be that when you consciously promote women because they are women using affirmative action principles, you end up with second-rate candidates (like Ms Gillard, it’s argued).

But men have been promoted for eons just because they are men, and no one seems to complain about that.

The idea that any woman appointed solely on her gender is a token appointment is ludicrous. Do people seriously believe there are not enough experienced women to fill half

of all boards in this state of four million people?

Of course there are. Any woman lucky enough to be appointed will soon prove her worth and any discussion about the “token woman” will be forgotten.

@susieob

[e-mail]