When Turnbull first took over the Prime Ministership, Labor were looking at a sound thrashing in the next election. In less than a year, they’ve managed to pull themselves up to a too-close-to-call position. As I’ve said before, they’ve done it by meeting personality with policy and marking out a clear difference in the approach they’ll take to government. Trust is still an issue for both the major parties, but there are some stark distinctions in how people perceive the them, which will have a huge impact on votes. And much of it can be chalked up to the government’s inability to promote women within the party.
More than 50 percent of people believe large corporations, banks and people on high incomes will be better off under a Liberal government, less than 10 percent think the same of Labor. At the other end of the scale, low income families, single parents, the unemployed, pensioners, recent immigrants, people with disabilities and average working people are all significantly more likely to be perceived as better off under a Labor government.
Basically, people see the Liberals as the party for rich people and Labor as the party for everyone else.
Why?
There’s probably a combination of reasons for this, Labor has traditionally been the party for the working class, and despite John Howard co-opting the middle class during the boom years, the Liberals have always held seats in the well to do areas of our major cities. But there is another factor that might be at play. Only 20 percent of the government MPs (House and Senate) are women, compared to over 40 percent of Labor MPs. The wallpaper of blue suits and ties in every group photo, the constant presence of right white men in government blends perfectly with our perception of corporate power. Risible attempts to change that perception, like the #faketradie or Turnbull claiming to be a feminist don’t alter the reality that this is a government who sees little merit in anyone who isn’t a rich white man. That their policies reinforce this position is just a chicken and egg argument.
" the mere presence of a woman doesn’t negate gender inequality or lack of representation."
Lisa Annese, CEO of the Diversity Council Australia, once told a story about the All The Girls To The Front appeal that gave it a far more disturbing twist than Kathleen Hanna’s clarion call. She said it used to happen during the Vietnam war protests. When camera crews turned up to film the protests, the organisers would start yelling for all the girls to go to the front of the crowd, because women (particularly young and pretty women) would get more media attention and give the impression that women were leading the peace movement. Annese described this as the female veneer, bringing women forward to disguise the fact that men are dominating a space in which women have very little representation. As she said, the mere presence of a woman doesn’t negate gender inequality or lack of representation.
"They are the exception that proves the rule"
Julie Bishop, Marise Payne and Michaelia Cash are all strong, successful women whose achievements in a male dominated environment are laudable, but their presence doesn’t prove that the Liberals are a party of equality. They are the exception that proves the rule, and while the government continues to run as a group of mostly homogeneous white men, they will not be able to convince the vast majority of the country, who are not rich white men, that they can, or will, truly represent them.
And things like this, with sinister echoes of the “ditch the witch” protest, will continue on and constantly reinforce the message that women are not welcome, trusted or respected by the government.
Obviously, politicians need to do more than just promote diversity to govern well. But it’s the underlying assumptions preventing diversity occurring naturally that are the real problem. While women, people of colour, the LGBTI community, people with disabilities and anyone from a disadvantaged background are viewed with suspicion, party policies and their public face will reflect their unspoken view that merit is usually only found in white men from privileged families.
Jane Gilmore is a writer from Melbourne. She writes about politics and feminist issues, and her work has appeared in Fairfax, The drum, The Guardian, and more.
