“In short, we are engaged in our region in almost all aspects of life and society. So why do so many Pacific Islanders see us as neo-colonial opportunists? Ouch!"

Who says they do? The media? Australian self-haters? All this writer refers to is a poll suggesting that most Pacific islanders rated their security as poor. Where is the poll showing that they see us as “neo-colonial opportunists”? Her blurb indicates that she knows something about the region, but surely she should reveal why she thinks that we are regarded as “neo-colonialists”? Or does she believe that all Australians feel badly enough about themselves to simply believe her?

Ms. Morriss claims that we are heavy-handed when it comes to handouts in the Pacific, but she wants us to interfere with the cultural matters different from our own and go to bat for women.

Any country under corrupt governance is doomed to failure, but to suggest that women are less corrupted than men is drawing a very, very long bow. The touchier among us would even suggest gross discrimination against men.

As a contribution to June’s topic of “Australia in the region”, this one is way off the subject.

If the Pacific Islanders think we are heavy handed now in the way we distribute aid wait until we march in to their countries to change their whole culture by putting more women in positions of authority or some how getting women elected to office.

Sounds to me like this path has a lot of similarities to Iraq

Thank you Leigh and Bruce for writing what is obviously the simple in-your-face truth.

For those who have a penchant for believing that women are incorruptible and the very pillars of societal virtue, you might be interested to read this story -

Manchester Evening News
Women "lie, cheat and steal"
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/139/139613_women_lie_cheat_and_steal.html?ref=emtaf&archive=archive

It says: "The new survey of women's attitudes to truth, relationships, and behaviour, said the overwhelming majority (96%) admit to lying."

Now, if that's not enough to put the wind up you about the possible corruptibility of women, then have a quick think about this very article and its own blatant spin - put more women into Pacific politics - and then read about the role of the authoress.

"Cate Morriss is Secretary of the Pacific Islands Political Studies Association (PIPSA); she is based at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland."

Of course she wouldn't be pushing her own barrow to gain some political power and pecuniary advantage here, would she?. Oh no. Of course not. She's only writing this in a truly altruistic and academic self sacrificing frame of mind I'm sure.

Yeah right!

I would LIKE to think (as a woman) that putting women in positions of power would lead to a more just society. I believe that the roles women have traditionally held (mothers, teachers, health and child care workers, hospitality and service work...)have tended to give them a greater appreciation of others' needs. Most polls which break down opinions on various questions into male and female responses tend to show the women having a more "left" point of view - more concern for the underpriveleged.

BUT: having said that...

Less corrupt? I'm not sure about that. Maybe women are less corrupt because they have historically had less opportunity to exact advantage from their positions. (and of course: Imelda Marcos, Mrs Mao, and now Mrs Mugabe).

As to having women in parliament, I am convinced that this is vital. Quotas might be useful to get the ball rolling. When the culture has changed to the point where reasonable numbers of women are supported to reach higher positions, quotas can be phased out. When any parliament considers policy changes which will negatively affect women, I want someone in there confronting them. Thank God for the parliamentary women who recently united to break Tony Abbott's stranglehold on RU-486. I want women to speak on women's issues. I may not agree with them but I know that their experience informs their opinion.

Women in politics in many places have not achieved as much change as we might expect. When they are "exceptions" in the parliament, they often have to spend most of their time playing politics just to keep their seats. They may try to be more right-wing than the men (Maggie Thatcher) or sit on the fence and avoid upsetting anyone (Megawati). When there are more women around, and being female stops being an issue in itself (as in Iceland), they actually get time to address the important issues.

Read this book: Women World Leaders. (Interviews with 15 female serving and ex- prime ministers and presidents - Thatcher, Bhutto, Aquino, et al, speaking speak frankly of the expectations and pressures on female politicians).

Perhaps take a look at the article by Dr Dollar, or read quote below from the article:

'Numerous behavioral studies have found women to be more trust-worthy and public-spirited than men. These results suggest that women should be
particularly effective in promoting honest government. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that the greater the representation of women in parliament, the lower the level of corruption. We find this association in a large crosssection of countries; the result is robust to a wide range of specifications.'

Of course no-one can account for an individual behaviour, be they male or female, but the consensus has been, over time, that a gendered balance gives better results. It is true that many women have shown masculine political traits but a critical mass of women in politics would help women of integrity to overcome some of the barriers to free and open participation. The article doesn’t suggest women are perfect - it suggest equality may see an improvement. This seemingly intimidates some men, if it is OK to impose democratic systems, trade regulations, mobility restrictions etc on the one hand why be afraid of women being emancipated on the other. Very few women who are held back due to patriarchalism like it. Also, to be free to participate is not to say women or men have to leave behind 'cultural ' or 'traditional' practices, but allows women to adapt to contemporary conditions in the same way that men have. Hiding behind culture is no excuse for inequality. In examining gender impact and implementing gender mainstreaming policies governments are considering the impact on men and women, not just women. It is a system designed to be sure all citizens are considered so policies can function at an optimum

Why is Australia being made responsible for Pacific communities? Are they all becoming pensioners on the Australian taxpayer? Do they give anything at all in return?
I do not feel we should interfere in their affairs unless asked to. Nor should they expect this country to foot their bills.
If industry is out of their reach, tourism certainly should not be but to attract tourists, you must offer a peaceful environment with no ethnic warfare.
We have enough problems with Aboriginal troubles, Muslim troubles and all the rest of the multicultural bag of worries, we have our own street kids and homeless people who should-but are not--be fixed up before taking on the rest of the neighbourhood.
If the current crop of do gooders would worry a bit more about Australians in trouble and a bit less about outsiders, this would a better country.