A call for diversity

Advocating diversity is more than the gambit of the left or minorities. Often it is held as a soft issue that is about social policy. It is a political and economic conversation too.

Last week my newsfeed flared up with John Howard speaking at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty. Prime Minister Howard claimed that political parties' memberships are less representative than the people who vote for the party.

Some would claim that being a white man who was educated in law at a top institution that Howard is one of the least diverse men going around. We see people who are similar to him across our media and in public life.

He is right though. It is oft noted that memberships of the parties are falling, likewise that of trade unions and the establishment clubs. With this fall, hegemons are created.

Liberal and Labor each have somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 people in their membership. In a country of around 23 million people that is a small number. It edges on minute.

We are a multicultural society; however we seem to have been hijacked by a narrow representation of our nation. Parliamentarians are mostly of European descent, 70% male and most have qualifications in the humanities, law and economics.

It was only 1962 that Aboriginal people had the right to vote and stand for the Commonwealth parliament, and Ken Wyatt is the first Indigenous person to sit in the House of Representatives.

Politicians always embrace the idea of diversity – having more women and ethnic diversity in parliament is always going to be supported. Because we know that the sum of all innovation, knowledge and talent cannot lie in the hands of a few or one group.

When Julie Bishop was announced to be the only woman in cabinet last year there was a feminist furore, and rightly so. The previous Labor government had ended up having 11 women in cabinet. The ALP has maintained this gender diversity in opposition.

The Liberals are widely criticised, internally and externally, on not supporting women. They wave a white flag of merit, but that has little grounding because we know that the leadership maintains support through state and regional alliances which give undue favour to the less deserving.

McKinsey and Co. in 2012 reported that the best performing companies have embraced diversity as a core tenet of their operations. How come our parliament cannot?

Are we missing something? Is ethnic and gender diversity a bad thing?

For a representative government, there is a consistent theme of a white-male-wash occurring. I am a fan of the merit argument it makes perfect sense. The problem is that I can point to people who could be in political leadership, cabinet or otherwise, who are not white men. Even some of the most talented men in parliament have been overlooked: Josh Frydenberg, Alan Tudge, Michael Danby and Andrew Leigh.

It defies logic. There is a passing up of talent to support mates.

I can look past this, because it is not necessarily the duty of parliamentary party to achieve this. The party administrators have failed to create a pipeline of talent.

There are programs to foster cultural inclusivity in the party through programs like Liberal Women, Racial and Ethnic Equality Labor and a bevy of other subsets. These are not new, yet they are not attracting a membership reflective of broader society.

Women have been the majority of graduates from university since the 1980s and the White Australia Policy was abandoned fully in 1973. It should not come as a shock that diverse cultures are a bevy of political talent, or that women can equally compete with men in parliament.

A Liberal politician once said to me that the reason she decided to run for parliament is because that she believed that the Party lacked a voice for women. She wanted to connect the party with the women like her. They were, and still are, resistant to this idea and her being in parliament with this mandate.

Somehow parties are preselecting not on who could be a good politician or representative but who is ticking factional and organisational boxes.

In discussions about diversity there is always a question hanging above quotas. While the Labor Party has a quota for women, and it clearly is working on a representative level in parliament, there is little consensus on cultural diversity.

Parties lack change agents to encourage diversity and inclusion. Those who are considered "diverse" often hold their positions on a tight rope juggling factional support and towing a party line. It can seem as if they avoid questions on diversity like the plague.

To call political parties a merit-based system isn't foolish it is downright idiotic. Arguably, political parties are consolidating power at the detriment of the national interest.

Without embracing cultural and gender diversity, Australia will not reach its full potential. I think we deserve better.