Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Kevin Rudd Asked Driver for Sex...Oh...Wait...+ How Affirming is the Action?

That should read "Kelly Hoare Asked Driver for Sex". But you may not necessarily make that distinction were you to have briefly seen the blaring headline on Sunday's Terror.

See, apparently Kelly Hoare is a 'Rudd MP', not merely a 'Labor MP' - or, forbid, just 'Federal MP'. Despite the fact that prior to this story being released, Hoare had just been shafted for Greg Combet, so she wasn't even an MP anymore, let alone a 'Rudd MP'.

Still, guilt by association and all that - even when there's no actual association. Something tells me Kev's meeting with Uncle Rupert didn't go quite as well as his smirk implied.

********************************************************************************

Anyway, this segues nicely into a debate currently under way about women in politics and affirmative action - an 'insulting relic', according to TUAI Janet.

Firstly, with regard to Hoare: If she is guilty of what she's been accused - asking a driver to 'come inside and fuck me' - then she's not fit to be a MP, and the Labor Party did the right thing shafting her, even if it was just so they could install Melbourne-based Combet in a safe NSW seat. Can you imagine the furore - quite rightly, too - if the gender roles had been reversed here, and it was for example Wayne Swan or Tony Abbott making the same request of a female driver? So I don't have much sympathy for Hoare, victim or otherwise of the Labor machine.

Now, with regard to Labor's affirmative action program: It's fair to say I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think we can be so naive as to think that gender equality has been completely achieved and made affirmative action programs in politics redundant just yet - and I probably won't really believe it until such time as we have a female Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister (go Jules) and/or female premiers who haven't been propped there merely as scapegoats for the administrative debacles of their predecessors.

So I'm not opposed to the concept per se - but I question how it is applied within Labor. Think of some of the recent candidate announcements for the 2007 election. Who have been given either a safe or winnable seat to contest? Greg Combet (Charlton), George Newhouse(Wentworth), Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong), Jason Clare (Blaxland), Gary Gray (Brand) and Michael Kelly (Eden-Monaro), for starters.

But who've been given difficult or virtually impossible seats to contest? Mia Handshin (Sturt), Nicole Cornes (Boothby) and Belinda Neal (Robertson).

Do you see a pattern?

If Labor's AA program is merely a tokenistic pretence of support, which doesn't actually translate to installing quality female candidates into winnable Labor seats, then it's pretty useless. Similarly, Labor is only shooting itself in the foot if its AA program leads to a lightweight like Nicole Cornes getting a gig, while a quality candidate like Warren Mundine misses out to a fairly ineffectual hack like Julia Irwin.

But I don't think the faults of AA as applied by Labor are of themselves cause to dismantle the program altogether. The fact is women bear extra pressures in what is still a male-dominated, chauvinistic (in Labor and Liberal at least) industry. Penny Wong's take on criticisms of Cornes sums these pressures up quite well. While Labor loyalties prevent Wong from identifying the more legitimate critcisms of Cornes' apparent ignorance of policy and issues, she makes the valid point that

the pressure (on women) is on to be all things to all people. Given that this is an impossible task, women are then often criticised for not measuring up.

They’re either too pretty, too young, too fat or too unmarried. You have to ask whether male candidates get the same sort of treatment.


Furthermore, as Wong argues, sometimes the greatest critics of women are, sadly, other women. They're in an almost impossible situation, not just with men but with the sisterhood too.

And double standards are rife. It was offensive to read the Murdoch rags repeatedly refer to 'Julia' in their headlines when Gillard was under scrutiny for her 'jihad on business' comments. Would the same papers ever refer to 'John', 'Tony' or 'Kevin' so patronisingly? Don't think so.

So for the moment, I think the extra support is still needed, and I agree with affirmative action 'in theory'. But 'in theory', Communism works. 'In theory.' In practice, it doesn't seem to be working quite so well for Labor.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8 comments

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Proper education

My first reaction to seeing that convicted heroin peddler and reformed addict Michael Coutts-Trotter - aka Mr Tanya Plibersek - had been appointed NSW Director-General of Education, was naturally, as the seasoned, serious political commentator I am: "Hmm - kinda cute for a senior public servant." Between mum and dad, the Trottersek spawn has scored some quality genes.

Anyway, I was unsurprised by the hysterical shrieking of the Terror set. Helen Lovejoy would be heartened by all these Concerned CitizensTM begging us to PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! In fact, the Terror's surpassed itself with this headline: "Drug school boss 'inspires' wife". I'm pretty sure he hasn't just been appointed to head any drug school - indeed, I'm not even sure would a "drug school" would be - but whatever.

The appointment is dodgy, but not because of the guy's history with smack. If we're to give up on any idea of prison as a means of rehabilitation as well as punishment, we may as well never let convicted felons outside again after we've locked them up - an idea that no doubt appeals to many Terrorists (readers of the Terror), but with little grounding in reality.

Trotter has done remarkably well to reform and turn his life around. He's served his time, has not re-offended since and is a working model of how there can be life after a drug addiction. Having seen members of my own family overcome this nightmare drug and function again in society I know just how difficult it can be, and credit should always be issued where it's due. Condemnation of Trotter as a convicted dealer, not merely user, is irrelevant - most users invariably peddle the shit around themselves to free up some cash for their own next hit.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Trotter won't come into direct contact with the kiddies - he'll no doubt be fairly safe and protected from everyday reality in the high ivory tower of public service, as most senior bureaucrats usually are. But even if he's not, I think he's actually an ideal model to present to children, or at least young adults who may themselves be battling drug addictions.

And again, none of this of itself should be an impediment to Trotter enjoying a successful career in whatever he chooses. He's done the crime, he's done the time. Even new Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell says: "Of course I have a problem with the drug background … but my first starting point in who heads up education are what are the qualifications for the job … I am happy to believe in redemption."

(Side note: This is the second time now I've heard O'Farrell say something fair and sensible for a senior Lib. I can see myself warming to this guy. Well - more so than I ever did with Frank Spencer, anyway.)

Having said all this, I still think the appointment is dodgy. It certainly reeks of "jobs for the boys", although let's not be naive and pretend such appointments are only the terrain of NSW Labor - plenty of Howard's mates have scored sweetly in the last decade too. Plus it would appear Trotter is not entirely qualified to run Australia's biggest education department. His CV covers press secretary and chief of staff to the former treasurer, Michael Egan, and, most recently, the director-general of the Department of Commerce. As the Smuh puts it in today's ed:
Assuming there was good reason to replace the previous director-general, Mr Andrew Cappie-Wood, was there really no better candidate than Mr Coutts-Trotter? Was there no one with stronger qualifications and experience in education, or in managing a large organisation? Or an executive who combined both, as did Dr Ken Boston, a former NSW director-general of education now prominent in Britain? How are the Ken Bostons of the future to emerge when, instead of a doctor of education, NSW schools get a former spin doctor?

And further:
Such an appointment deserves very careful consideration, especially when public schools are bleeding students to the private sector, and school education is under attack from a doctrinaire federal education minster. Headhunters should be approached, and candidates' credentials and experience measured against demanding criteria.

Sadly, in both the state and federal arenas, such top appointments are instead decided behind closed doors by governments with no obligation to explain their thinking.

So let's be critical of this appointment by all means. But let's make sure it's for the right reasons. And hey, give the guy a fighting chance first - he may prove to be an outstanding D-G after all. Stranger things have happened.

Labels: , ,

posted by Sam @ Thursday, April 12, 2007 7 comments