The story goes that "Diversity is our strength" was a slogan used for a fund raising campaign by the ADL of Bnai Brith in the U.S in the early 1990's. The slogan was then picked up by one of President Clinton's speech writers who changed it to "Diversity is our greatest strength", if I remember rightly that speech was delivered by Clinton in Portland Oregon in the mid 90's.
The idea of diversity as a strength as opposed to what it really is, a weakness is just a slogan and nothing more, the statement has no basis in fact and it's well known that diversity in a community or organisation negatively affects things like trust, feelings of safety, altruism and, economic activity/investment and community participation.
Look, let's be realistic, politicians, journalists and academics are not respected members of society in this country, nobody looks to them for leadership or for ideas so this whole debate is kind of pointless since there's basically nothing those sectors of civil society can do to improve their image. More brown faces in parliament will lead to more ill feeling toward brown people generally, both from the White ethnic group and also within their own ethnic groups and so called "affirmative action" could be the spark that sets off the powder keg. You only have to look at the negative way in which Jews are perceived in mainstream society due to their over representation in the fields of work I've listed above.

the other dogma that the handbag brigade totally disproved in the last federal parliament was that having more woman in power would mean a more civilised parliament. The exact opposite took place with many of the grubbiest shots coming from the 'ladies '. They then cried the 'victim' card in order to cover incompetence.

"Is ethnic and gender diversity a bad thing?"

No, it's an irrelevant thing.

Does a "diverse" hospital make a healthier patient?
Does a "diverse" orchestra play Mozart better?

"There is a passing up of talent to support mates."

And the ethnic and female members won't have "mates" to favour?

"they are not attracting a membership reflective of broader society."

Your "reflection" is a fantasy.

The non-White population on a *national* scale is negligible.
And men are half the population.

"ticking factional and organisational boxes."

So they should tick minority/identity boxes instead?

"qualifications in humanities, law and economics"

Why not? Their decisions will affect society, the law and the economy.

What should they be qualified in? Zoology? Meteorology? Tennis?

How is having darker skin or a womb a "qualification"?

If you truly want genuine community "reflection" in political decisions, you shouldn't be pushing an agenda that basically keeps the Canberra-silo structure intact.

You should be advocating *direct* democracy.

I'd rather we concentrated on increasing the integrity quotient. You can't help noticing that the majority of politicians and hangers-on up before the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption are fairly recent arrivals from countries where corruption and public office go hand in hand.

Candide,
Your observations are of course right & a clear indication of things in the making because the dumbcrap Australian Left can't see a millimeter past themselves.
Of course it's all Abbott's fault, I mean we can't really blame Labor for its stupidity can we. After all stupidity is not a criminal offence.

Q, is anybody in the loony left wing religious cult seriously suggesting that a 16 or 17 year old has as much life experience & wisdom as a 60 or 70 year old?

Q, has our society, culture & government has been getting progressively worse over the last half century as we have been listening more to women, youth, people from 2nd & 3rd world cultures?

Q, is anyone on the left willing to even try to answer these questions?