When the theory we are using fails to explain what we are observing - especially in very significant or essential ways - it raises the obvious possibility that the theory is wrong. When we find that happening, the rational thing to do is reject that theory and look for one with better explaining power.

While the author's open racism and sexism are repugnant, he does raise some valid points about the gap between the claimed and the actual representativeness of democratic government.

Contrary to popular myth - inculcated by government during its compulsory indoctrination of the population during their formative years - government is not some kind of institution of social service. Nor is its nature in representing the people.

Of course anyone or any group who are against murder and rape are, to that extent, "representative" of the will of the people so far as the people oppose murder or rape. But no-one would mistake any other group, such as a football club, or a quilting bee, or an agricultural show society, as more representative of society than society is of itself, as people commonly mistake government.

All the arguments, or rather assumptions, in favour of representative government are demolished here:
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/

The facts of history clarify things. Australian government succeeds from a line of government established in 1066 - actually earlier. Yet according to contemporary notions of representative government, it didn't qualify as representative government until women's suffrage in the last 100 years. So obviously it is wrong to explain government as a representative institution.

Government, in its very nature, is *always* *necessarily* less representative of the people than the people are of themselves by their own consensual actions.

Stopping aggressive force, fraud, and exploitation are valid for anyone. Unfortunately, governments are too often the worst offenders.

Given that Australia is made up of about 80% of people of European descent, then the 70% of European descendants in parliament is an under representation. Perhaps we need quotas for more European people in parliament?

Anyway, the people in the job should be the best person for the job, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sex. The author is a racist and sexist for categorising and making snide stereotypes based on race and sex.

I've always found it fascinating that when "progressives" are aiming for some kind of genderless and raceless society, the first thing they do is divide people up into sex and race, with numerous derogatory remarks toward one particular race and sex (white males obviously). Anyway, this is a core contradiction in the thinking of "progressivism" today. I wouldn't expect them to understand their approach because analytical thinking is not their forte. Instead, they have a political aim and want to force it through, regardless of the contractions involved.

Excellent Jardine K. Jardine and Aristocrat great reply to demonstrate just how far we have to go. on a side note Jardine you need help there are plenty of mental help professionals in your area please seek them out.

Also Conrad, has it ever occurred to you that the reason why so many people want to come to Australia from all over the world from, for example, Iraq, is because 70% of Australia's politicians are white males with qualifications in humanities, law and economics? They don't want politicians in proportionate world share of Afghans versed in Koranic law, Chinese ethnic chauvinists, Iranians with a master-race mentality and vision of an Islamic republic, traditional Inca or Aztec notions of government, and so on? Other people don't necessarily share your confusion and hypocrisy.

"Diversity" is just the latest in a long line of sales slogans being spouted by the we-want-to-socially-re-engineer-the-world set. And just like their previous campaigns it is full of crap!

The beneficiaries of diversity are often –maybe even usually–those from privileged (non-white)backgrounds.I have worked beside/above/below many such beneficiaries who would delight in telling me stories about having had chauffeurs, maids and tutors to attend to all their needs.

However, when it came to job interviews they took on the persona of a poor discriminated minority, and any organisation employing them over the progeny of a lighter skinned much lower class local was sure to win a huge amount a diversity/multicultural kudos—after all, the lighter skinned applicant just had to be more privileged!

Yes, and some real world experience as opposed to coming straight from uni/the union movement, and straight into a political career.
Practical people with real world experience, wouldn't make the politically motivated decisions; that only ever serve the political contest, rather than the real national interest.
Moreover, if politicians were no longer protected from most of their asinine divisions, we'd likely have a seriously growing economy, no infrastructure deficits; the best health care, the best public transport, education etc/etc.
And indeed, the smallest least costly government, as opposed to the biggest pro rata, bar one.
Some cities with populations as larger or larger than our total, are governed by a single council, or administrations that include a single winner takes all mayor, and his appointed civil servants. If they get it right, they're rewarded with a second term?
Unimpeded they way we have been for around two centuries, by endlessly bickering self serving, road blocks in the path of genuine progress, pollies!
We need more than just diversity, but root and branch reform of the whole rotten political mess, and true democracy, actually reinstated.
When all you've got is a mess of rotten scrambled eggs?
The only sane response is to junk the lot and start again with fresh eggs, or rather fresh ideas that kick off with a change to proportional representation.
And wouldn't that make a pleasant change from the usual "mud" wrestle, that has become our gridlocked parliaments, or sometimes seriously compromised self serving/blinkered pollies?
Incompetents sacrifice much more than money, or social reform, but as evidenced in the, until now, untold stories of our secret heroes, some of our very best people as well!
And and disgraceful debacles able to be covered up for years, by the simple expediency, of official secrecy! N.B.
Rhrosty.