SBS Online: If quotas are not the answer, what was the question?

The piece was originally posted on SBS News Online!

Since the announcement of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's one-woman cabinet, the discussion around quotas and representation of women in levels of influence has been rekindled with passion.  Both sides of the debate have defended their position with vehement enthusiasm.

"Oh, I am all for equal and fair representation of women - but quotas? No, I want women based on merit", is the most common argument.

Women themselves - even those who would be in a position to benefit - seem particularly sensitised to this argument. They'll shy away from being given an 'unfair advantage' or reject it outright, presumably in the belief that to do otherwise would be to affect their perceived legitimacy.

Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop is a strong opponent of quotas. ''I never want to see affirmative action - that is, you got the job because you were a woman - because that makes you a permanent second-class citizen,'' she says. Her fellow Member of Parliament, Julie Bishop, shares this sentiment.

The discussion around targets, quotas or affirmative action is extremely polarising, yet the underlying question seems to be unclear. What exactly is it that we are trying to achieve - and why? If quotas are not the answer, what is?

If "more women in leadership positions" is the overall aim, then the data from around the world proves that the concept of affirmative action appears to be working.

Norway is touted as the classic global example, having introduced a mandatory quota for women on boards in 2002 and passed by the Norwegian parliament in 2003. In this Scandinavian nation, the percentage of women on boards did in fact increase from 9% in 2003 to 39% in 2009. The first study on the effects of the quota was undertaken by the Norwegian Institute for Social Research and the results reinforced the benefit of affirmative action on the 'bigger picture'.  It was reported that the majority of directors surveyed indicated that more women on the board led to new perspectives and more issues being added to the board agenda.  A seeming win-win situation, right?

But if the aim is about promoting those with this intangible and extremely subjective criteria of 'merit' - well, perhaps our society's entire process of promotion needs an overhaul!

In pure numbers, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that women have the edge on their male counterparts in Bachelor degrees and higher qualifications.  27 per cent of women compared to 24 per cent of men hold these type of tertiary degrees.  If we are looking at entry requirements for merit, wouldn't these numbers reflect an even - or even female oriented - outcome?  Understandably, leadership positions aren't just based on degrees. Industry and management experience and networks play a significant role, as well as the fact that often women take time off work to raise families.  But if we are talking about 'merit', qualifications are surely an indicator.

If society functions by promoting, hiring and being led by the best, why do all our 'best' look so similar at the top - but things work so differently at the bottom? The difference between entry points is striking.

The Australian Financial Review's 100 Women of Influence, for example, is a list of some of the most inspiring ladies around the country. Yet the significant contribution and capacity of women doesn't seem to leave the  impression that it should. Whether this is because we, as females are predisposed to more nurturing roles, or whether this is because people hire and promote those who are like them is up for debate - but it remains a thorn in our sides.

Jane Caro asks some of these questions in a timely piece, where she also highlights that the idea of quotas and targets are not new and they continue to be utilised for a variety of representations.  It would be inconceivable for a regional representative or a youth representative for example, to refuse a position solely because they were selected on the basis of location or age.

Why is gender different? What makes us all so uncomfortable with forced structural change around gender?  I struggle to understand the deep seated resentment against the idea.  Is there a sense of illegitimacy if a woman feels like she is only there to 'fill in a quota' and if so, where does that sense of illegitimacy come from?

I am not a social engineer and don't have the answer.  I am simply a 22-year-old who wonders: is inducing change to have women around the cabinet table and in the boardroom the best way to achieve our collective desired outcome?  Quite possibly yes - if the aim is for our leadership and the pipelines to these positions to be fair, equitable and representative.

By equity and fairness, I mean that the characteristic of gender is not an obstacle to being considered, and that a woman's capacity is readily identifable. Of course, removing unconscious bias is easier said than done.  By representative, I mean that our leadership reflects the makeup of those being led.  Given a majority of our population is women, a largely male dominated leadership is not really representative at all.

One thing is for sure : affirmative action makes the talents of women more visible.  It is a mechanism to force people to look outside the usual traps for talent, and that is what gives the concept potential.

Philosophically, we might not feel comfortable with it - but if the aim is to have our leadership as diverse as our population, perhaps the end justifies the means.

The piece was originally posted on SBS News Online!

Women in the LNP Cabinet: What's Next?

 

In April this year, we had a female Prime Minister, a record number of women in our cabinet and a rich and interesting public debate around the role of women in our society, evidenced through books like the Griffith Review's Women and Power, and the capitvating campaign, Destroy the Joint.

Fast forward a few months and where are we?  In a nation where the discourse around women in leadership seems stifled and the cabinet has fewer women than that of Afghanistan.  That comparison is apt.  It illustrates that even in a country struggling with a war torn history and one that is generally portrayed in Western media as an oppressive environment for women has the systems in place to enable more females to play a leading role in the governance of the state.  Part of me thinks this is more about the fact that there is a lack of understanding about the role the women play in Eastern countries, but that is another discussion in itself.

Should this lack of women in our cabinet be something we discuss, analyse or just accept?  Should we be worried? It is definitely had the fingertips on keyboards, and for good reason.  

On Meritocracy

For what it is worth, I will throw my hat in the ring here by saying that I am sick of people saying that 'women shouldn't be promoted for the sake of a quota or a target'.  It is a common sentiment when quotas or targets are mentioned, and quite often by other women.  There seems to be a sense that a quota will take away from the sense of legitimacy of a woman's position, and there will be a perception that gender was the only reason that position was awarded.

"It's got to be a meritocracy." said Brownyn Bishop to Radio National.  On that basis, has the current 'meritocracy' has deemed that women aren't able to govern our countries or run our boards? I highly doubt it.  Also, does this mean that every man is promoted on the basis of merit?  James Diaz rings a bell for someone who might not fit that depiction.  

Yes, a meritocracy is important.  What seems to be forgotten however, is that a meritocracy is only as good as the access and equity of the pathways available.  If there are 'women knocking on the doors' of the cabinet as Abbott has stated, what is stopping them from jumping that threshold? Is that door locked?

Yes, he is focusing on 'stability and consistency', and it is understandable he doesn't want to cause too much change.  He said he is disappointed, but clearly not disappointed enough to make any changes.   Is there a systemic issue, or is it one of circumstance?  

The alarming lack of diversity among those who lead our nation is something we should care about.  As Nareen Young so eloquently put it, leadership should reflect the community that it serves.   No one can better represent a group that someone from that actual group - a woman for women, an indigenous for the First People, a culturally and linguistically diverse for the many migrants, and so on and so forth.  The current lineup insinuates that the group - all from a similar socio-economic demographic an gender - are able to speak for and represent all of Australia.  It does seem a little...disingenuous.  

Our Future

The best way to encourage the young and bright to any discipline is by having role models who are walking the walk.

Right now, who do we have? Our last role model in the area, Julia Gillard, was treated by the media and public perception with insults and vitriol that were lower than low.  The fact that the this was said by people who are on our airwaves boggles the mind!  Political correctness gone wrong they say - gah! There was no correctness at all.

So with the events of the last few months, what on earth would encourage a young woman to enter politics? Society inculcates enough self esteem issues related to appearance growing up as a teenager, you would hope people had moved on by the time they 'grew up'. Not so, it seemed.

Now, with even fewer women gracing our tv screens in a governing role, who will we look up to?

On one hand, it is amazing and awesome that we had a female PM, a female Speaker and now a female Foreign Affairs Minister.  It would seem though that these are more exceptions that prove the rule.  The way they were treated and their circumstances indicate that really, there is still a way to go.

What Next?

The thing is, the country has chosen. Decisively, it chose the Coalition of the Liberal and National Party to represent us for the next three years. So no matter how we feel about their policies, we must accept the decision of the people and work with what we have.  

What we shouldn't accept though, is a return to being represented by those who don't reflect the make up of the nation.  We should keep talking about the role of women in society - in governing roles such as on the Cabinet and in the Boardroom.  We should talk about the equality of opportunity and fairness.  We should talk about allowing women the freedom to stay at home if they so choose, and respect that role equally - but understand that isn't the only role that they can play in our societies.

We should also, remember to bring men into this conversation.  At the end of the day, they are our fathers, our husbands, brothers, uncles, friends.  They are also dealing with finding their role in society, and getting them on board, to understand why this needs to happen and why it is important is imperative.  Hey, no one said it would be easy, after all, no group likes sharing power.

At the end of the day though, if we really want to see any change, we have to shake the system up enough, get enough of a critical mass behind us, and demand change ourselves.

Isn't that democracy?

***

Bonus: The Principle of Gender Equality...cannot be articulated better than by this video.

It may seem old fashioned and ridiculous, but one wonders at times, how many of these views are actually still held today but simply suppressed due to the current climate of political correctness...

It is about the Vote People, not the Boat People (Part 2).

This is the second half of this piece: Check out Part 1 here.

***

As an asylum seeker who has arrived by boat to Australia, under either the Labour or Coalition, you will be treated as a second class asylum seeker, be discriminated against due to your mode of arrival, possibly be settled in a third world nation without the infrastructure to support you OR be allowed into Australia but only on a temporary basis, until you can be sent back.

WHY does this policy standpoint seem to work?  The arguments used by voters include:

1. We don't hate refugees, we just don't like those who are jumping the queue.

Mate, there is no queue.  If that doesn't answer the question, let's look at reasons people decide to jump on a boat.

Problem 1 - Difficult access to UNHCR processing locations.  In some cases, like those from North and East Sri Lanka, the only place where you can apply for refugee status via the UNHCR is in Colombo, down in the South and in the heartland of the 'enemy'.  The number of checkpoints between where the refugees are coming from and where the UNCHR processing location is means that more likely than not, you won't make it through. What is your other option? Jump on a boat somewhere and try your luck.

Problem 2 - No camp nearby.  The UNCHR has a number of refugee camps and processing locations around the world.  However, if you are in a situation where a camp is inaccessible, or worse, you find one and it is full, where do you go?

Problem 3 - The length of wait to be resettled.  This is one of the wedge issues.  If the average wait in a refugee camp is 17 years, does it not make sense that individuals will try other options to start their life?  Yes, there are those that go through the system, wait in a camp and get duly processed.  It is pure folly to believe though that everyone has equal access to the UNHCR's processing pathway.  If there is an option - no matter how dangerous - that means you may be accepted into a nation in a shorter period of time, that option will be taken.  

This is an aspect of the issues that requires a concerted international or regional effort to tackle.   It is a major factor which means that if resolved, or even partly so, asylum seekers will not have the same incentive to risk their life by jumping on a boat.  They will have belief in the system and will wait - if they believe the system works.  This can be done by substantially increasing the capacity of the UNHCR to allow them to process individuals at a much faster rate, something Australia can work on.

2. Why don't they stay in Indonesia and Malaysia?

Both of these countries are not signatories to the UN Convention and as such, offer no rights and protection to asylum seekers and refugees.  This means that they live on the edge of civilisation, unable to work or educate themselves and their families and in the constant fear of detection and persecution.  This lifestyle is simply unsustainable.  Many are often recognised refugees and are simply waiting to be resettled, however, it can take them up to 20 or 30 years to be resettled into a third country.

3. We have to protect our borders.

Burnside says it best here.

"Border protection" is a grossly misleading term, used by both major parties. It implies that boat people are a threat to us. They are not. We do not need to be protected from asylum seekers: they need to be protected from their persecutors. 

We need to stop this defensive, exclusionary discourse that implies this is an issue of national security.  If it were, it would be under the Department of Defence.  It isn't. It is under the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.  Which means it is an issue of immigration!

Some say that if the refugees were white, this wouldn't be a problem, alluding to this issue targeting the xenophobic vote.  This is true, to a certain extent.  Interestingly,

***

There is no doubt there are people who will try to rort the system, individuals who take advantage of kindness.

However, this should NOT dictate our behaviour as a nation.

If we want to be world leaders, if we want to play a part in the region as part of the 'Asian Century', we have to show that we are willing to take our share of an international situation that isn't going anywhere.  

***

At the end of the day, the attitude towards refugees and asylum seekers in this country may be deemed as legal, technically. It may be deemed as politically savvy, for winning votes in this election.

However, at the end of the day, there is no way it can be deemed as fair, just or morally correct.

For a nation with the resources that we have, with the pride in ‘fairness’ we tout, with the capacity to take on refugees and provide them with the opportunity to start a new life, it is sad that we are not willing to take part of the international responsibility to protect properly.  Particularly as in some cases, our armed forces contributed to the situations that are forcing people out of their homes (Afghanistan, Iraq).  

…and they wonder why people are disengaging from politics.

It is about the Vote People, not the Boat People.

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. UN Declaration of Human rights, Article 14 (1) 

How have we come to this point?

How is it the the nation of Australia, which hosts 0.3% of the global total of 45.2 million refugees (Source, 2012), has resorted to disregarding sense, moral obligation, compassion and fairness?

What happened to 'we've boundless plains to share?'

There are no words to describe the ridiculousness of the current asylum seeker policy debate. In fact, to call it a policy debate in disingenuous.  This isn't about policy. This is about, as others before have stated vehemently, a race to the bottom.  A way to capture a vote in the conservative, close minded and those who feel threatened.  A way to talk about 'security of our borders', as if the asylum seekers that arrive on our shores via leaky vessels are invading our nation when in fact they are seeking our protection.

 ***

It is an issue that evokes a strong almost visceral emotional response in almost every individual.  Good policy isn't about emotional pleas though.  'Good' politics on the other hand...well, it seems that all our politics relies on is emotion.  

Emotion aside however, the facts are simple.

1. We have an obligation to the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which, as a nation, we signed and committed to (as well as the 1967 Protocol). This means that we are obliged to process asylum seekers who come to our shores.  We are NOT to discriminate based on mode of arrival.
2. 90% of boat arrivals who have been processed have been deemed refugees. Those who have not have been repatriated or held in detention. The distinction between asylum seekers and refugees is important. Asylum seekers are those waiting for their 'refugee claim' to be processed. Refugees are those who the UNHCR has already processed and are waiting to be resettled into a third nation.

***

The question that is often asked is 'why then have boat arrivals increased substantially since the Labor government came into power? Is this not due to the dismantling of the Howard Government's Pacific Solution?'

That is highly unlikely.

There are a number of factors that have contributed to the increase. This includes better organisation of the 'people smuggler' business, increase in zones of conflict (in 1999 we had yet to enter Afghanistan and Iraq) and the fragmented policy positions of the last few years. There have been multiple changes in the last three years – this encourages people to consider the option and helps the smugglers sell the proposition.

***

There are two aspects to the discussion. One is the morality of treatment of those who make the journey and arrive to our shores on boat. The second is the international effort to reduce the numbers coming by boat for their own safety, if this is something the Australian public truly wants (for the right reasons).

The policies being suggested may 'work', if by 'work' we mean reduce the number of individuals who arrive by boat, but this is to be seen.  The true issue however, is the intention behind the policy and the treatment of those who have already arrived and the opportunities they are afforded.

The Coalition's policy is a step backwards to the world of Temporary Protection Visas.  These reviled visas, implemented in 1999 by the Howard Government defeat the purpose of being granted asylum.

Being given a temporary visa means individuals are unsure as to whether they should start a full life in Australia or if they will be deported the moment the Government decides their country is safe to return to. It meant that you were effectively separated from your family permanently as you are not allowed to leave, but not given permission to help bring your family to Australia.  In this edition of the policy, refugees will also have to work for the dole indefinitely.

The only slight tinge of silver lining is that boat arrivals won't be counted under the 13, 750 humanitarian visa allocations for the year under the coalition government, meaning more refugees can arrive through the UNHCR process.  Ideally, this number should be increased substantially.

''The essential point is, this is our country and we determine who comes here,'' Mr Abbott said.

Well considering the largest proportion of illegal migrants are actually British and European visa overstayers, maybe that is who we should be turning our attention to.

***

I had too much to say, so find Part 2 of my thoughts here.