Tanya Plibersek's recent decision not to run for
the leadership of the Labor Party took many by surprise.
Myself included. She cited family reasons. If we are
serious about having more women in our parliament, then
perhaps we need to make some changes to ensure that they
are not the only ones having to make these life-style
choices.

For example:

What if politicians were able to do some of their work
via teleconferencing, instead of being required to
do it from Canberra?

Annabel Crabb writes an interesting article
in which she asks:

"Ïf MPs spent more time in their electorates, they'd not
only be able to go home to their families every night -
but they'd also find themselves more influenced by
those yelling at them about local issues then those
yelling at them about factional or ideological
divides in the airless corridors of parliament."

The link is worth a read.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-21/plibesek-labor-leadership-women-in-parliament/11132720

Your thoughts please?

the less Politicians and Government interfere in the average person's life the better. If that means staying away from Canberra then good. If women choose to have kids they are far better staying at home with them. The years go by to quickly and many regret farming them out instead of enjoying their formative years. If that means more men in Parliament then good. Most aren't interested in the gender/race politics that so many get promoted on. I for one am thrilled the Liberal party have got rid of Turnbull's women as in Banks and Bishop. They both showed themselves as devious and untrustworthy.

Sorry Foxy but they must spend that time in Canberra
In fact it oils the wheels of democracy and many say they do not spend enough there
EG member for Manila
They need to get together to deal with every thing including trying to get votes for upcoming bills to pass

Dear Belly,

Did you read the link I gave?

I think Annabel Crabb raises some valid points.

cont'd ...

Dear Belly,

we have representative democracy at its
ugliest. Toxicity reigns. Rituals like -
intelligence abatement known as "Question Time,"
cultivate and exploit hyper partisan messages
of the day, crafted only for repetition.

No wonder we have declining public trust in government.

There's many problems that need fixing within our
current political system. For example -
We have a crisis of
representation -
not only the lack of women, but our highly diverse
electorates that fail to identify with the major
parties.

We have a democratic system that is increasingly unable
to deliver good public policy in a consistent and coherent way.
It's unable to convince the public to support it.

Our public service seems to have an inability
to deliver independent quality policy
advice to ministers.
Perhaps due to cut backs of the service.

Our parties seem to be obsesses with short-term polling and
point scoring.

We need reforms.

Many political commentators have stated
that - reforms need to be rolled out - possibly in
stages to persuade a highly distrustful public that
democratic reform and renewal is in the interests of everyone.
Not just those in power.

Not would be a good time after
this election (and with its results)
to consider these reforms.

Electing new leaders is just not enough.

Dear Foxy,

Declining trust in governments ? Maybe in a purely hypothetical Shorten government, but here's something: will there be more or fewer 'independents' in either house of parliament for the next three years ?

Love always,

Joe

Sorry Foxy, but running a country is a full time job. Running a department of government, state or federal is also a full time job.

Emergencies don't wait until a time it suits parliamentarians to turn up at work in Canberra, Perth or Brisbane & often need decisions before an absentee minister would have time to get onto a plane, let alone get to Canberra.

With the money we pay Prime Ministers, & ministers I think it is reasonable to expect more than occasional appearance at the office. They definitely are paid enough to bring their families with them, if they want to be near them.

I'm afraid we have to say if ladies can't handle the job, then don't apply. Having members stay home is too big a cost for making changes.

In this instance I believe Tanya Plibersek has decided winning Labor leadership at the moment is a poisoned challis, she doesn't want. She is doing a Costello & dodging the leadership, & could be making an equally bad judgement.

Regardless of that, I have yet to see a Labor premier in Oz who was not a disaster, so I have no pressing desire for more ladies in parliament.

I don't think Annabel Crabb has any qualifications that would suggest she knows how politicians should be organising their lives; nor that the parliamentary system of hundreds of years should be concerned with making life easier for women who would make a better contribution to society by raising their own children instead of farming them out to strangers. If women wish to work when their children start school, there are more dignified and useful jobs for them than politics.

Dear Foxy,

The correct question should be, why is there a parliament in Canberra in the first place? Why are we being ruled remotely, for some it is from 1000's of kilometres away?

Having independence for the states will also mean, for example, that the Victorians need not complain about Queenslanders spoiling their GW celebrations, nor do Queenslanders need to complain about the interference of "Southerners" in their mining business.

Smaller states mean more freedom for everyone, so if you feel really oppressed by the laws and regulations of one region, you could simply move to another.

Whatever happened to the old -fashioned tele conferencing & video link-ups ? I believe there's also a technology called internet & telephone that would negate time-wasting travel & expenses. It seems rather idiotic to first develop such technology at massive cost & then don't use it.
An indigenous elder told me he wasn't going to vote for the liberal incumbent because "we don't see him anymore lately". That's after the community had literally millions spent on it to be a show community that doesn't actually do anything

Hi Foxy,

This brings us to to broader question of gender equality, and the roll of women in modern Australian society. Many on the Forum are not going to see that as nothing more than "traditional", being a wife and mother, who is keeping the home fires burning. Given the the pressures and requirements of life today, not all are accommodated, or necessarily wanting, that traditional lifestyle.

In a truly progressive society there would be choices that accommodate all manor of alternatives, but unfortunately that is not the case generally in Australia, particularly for women. Many women are being denied the choice of a career because of those unbending constraints placed on them by the traditional family model, which many feel obligated to conform to.

Paul1405,
Pliberseck, is not constrained by traditional wife family model, she's constrained by her ability which suddenly she realised wasn't what she thought it was.
I for one thank her for it !

May I? this thread may need to know our great lady deputy leader may well have needed a reason for not running for the leadership
See she, good as she is, would not have won
Bigoted men unwilling to vote for a woman leader
Her left position already pledged to Albo, she had her work cut out but she, one day,will make a great Minister

she, one day,will make a great Minister
Belly,
You've got a lot of faith in people despite their past !

Doesn't take long for the subject to be changed. It's gone from politicians' work methods to who is going the lead the discredited ALP. OK. It's either Albo or some unknown character - Chalmers, I think the nobody is called.

It has to be Albo; he is a real lefty, but a personable bloke who knows the ropes. It was never going Plebersek, the great abortion champion, who probably knew she never had a chance, given the abysmal, incompetent performances of females in Australian politics.

Who we are, the way we govern,
how we do things - these can all be improved. But if
we want to go further perhaps we need to talk about
reform. Reform is making something better by removal
of faults or errors. People can reform as can
institutions and procedures. When we reform the
reach is deeper and the impact longer lasting.

Reforms however are risky because they take away
or disrupt something that particular people or
interests hold true and having those things replaced
with something they don't like. Also sometimes reforms
don't deliver on their promises. So how you reform is
important.

As we've seen from this election - for reform to be
successful you need to take the people with you
and possibly try not to do too much all of a sudden.
It frightens people. We also need to ensure that change
will be embedded in our structures and systems otherwise
good ideas will inevitably be lost through poor
implementation.

Just to mention a few things - if we could have a limit
on the number of years that MPs serve - this might
encourage new people with new ideas - and get away
from the "club"mentality.

More diverse representation
in pre-selection choices that would represent electorates
better. Another thought - would be having four year
terms instead of three. Placing limits on election
budgets for each candidate. And also more women in
parliament might level the playing field.
It would also be more worthwhile to have Question
Time focused on relevant issues, less repetition
of calculated messages, less toxicity. And the list
goes on.

Scott Morrison made it clear that nothing will change
under his government. That things will remain the same.
One can only hope - that this will not be true.
This is his chance. Lets hope he uses his time in
parliament to all of our advantage. That he like
Hawke was, will be a true reformer.

'Scott Morrison made it clear that nothing will change
under his government.'

yep and if Labour are smart heaps will change under their divisive, ungodly socialist agenda. People want jobs and reliable electricity, retirees don't want to be robbed of money they worked 40 years for and people are sick of gender/race politics. Obviously by going with Albanese Labour have learn't nothing. Reform is only good if it is good reform not regressive socialism and engineering.

indy it would concern me, your effort at slagging off the lady
But see I know it is just another throw away line without connection to truth or fact
She is a clean skin, a good woman who serves us well

This is a very exciting time in politics.

Things have happened for a reason and hopefully
good will come out of these recent events.

We've just seen an ordinary suburban bloke do
an extraordinary thing. Win an unwinnable
election. A bloke who went from an accidental
Prime Minister to a homespun hero.
And he did it almost single-handedly.

I imagine that now, not for decades, will another
Opposition Leader dare take to an election an
agenda so bold as the Shorten Labor Party did.

Bill Shorten has now become Labor's John Hewson.
He proposed a starkly different set of policies
for the Australian economy and like Hewson's
"Fightback" manifesto a quarter of a century ago,
Shorten also got burned.

So convinced was Labor that the time and the vibe
suited their agenda. They were wrong.
Australians have shown themselves to be cautious
about change, susceptible to doubt, and to fear.

We've seen that especially in Queensland, voters
did not buy or believe in Shorten's message.

On the Adani mine, Shorten's words that the
contentious project would receive no public money
and would have to stack up scientifically and
commercially did not go down well with voters.
To them Adani meant jobs. Something the current
Labor Premier in Queensland has quickly picked up
on by taking immediate action.

The good and exciting news for us all is - that
Mr Morrison now has an opportunity to use his
immense authority (with Abbott gone), to demand
loyalty from the Coalition to steer a new direction
on critical areas such as energy (NEG). While
Labor also now has the opportunity under its new
leadership to steer it also in to a new direction.

We can only hope that the country will benefit from
the challenges that lie ahead for both the major
parties. And that both will have learnt lessons
from the recent election.

The opportunities are there. Who will make the most of
them, we shall have to wait and see. Fingers crossed
they both will.

Foxy I have got to say, thank god that Shorten with his ridiculous destructive energy policies was given his marching orders.

You say, "As we've seen from this election - for reform to be
successful you need to take the people with you
and possibly try not to do too much all of a sudden" No Foxy, reform has to be something that is good for the people of the country.

Shortens reform was only to allow him to buy votes from the envious & stupid. There is still nothing good in his policies, & a whole lot destructive. The politics of envy is a horrible thing to observe, & got what it deserved.

By the time of the next election, more people will have woken up to the scam that is the overheating of the atmosphere by CO2, & we might get an election on things that really are important to our future.

We are a 'representative' democracy. I want to be represented by at least some people like me - who have enough experience in common with me to represent me and my interests. Simply, I don't believe a male dominated parliament can represent me.

The parliament decides on how the country should be run - they don't do the actually work themselves, they delegate it to departments or contract it out. So the argument that running the country is a full-time job doesn't wash. Ministers don't run departments - they sit in their parliamentary offices and handle political issues.

(Actually some try to be hands-on (aka micro-manage) - sometime in the 1990s I was visiting a Qld government department; I was sitting in someone's office while he went to get some documents. The phone rang, and I was undecided whether to answer it or let it go to message bank. Suddenly a guy ran into the office, yelled at me 'Answer your phone' and picked it up, just as it stopped. With another quick lecture on how to do my job, he rushed off before I could say I was a visitor. He turned out to be the Minister, who drove the staff crazy from his habit of dropping in unannounced and telling them off - clearly he had no idea who was actually employed there!)

As for women with children, assuming a standard two child family, it would take about 18-20 years of a mother's time to raise the children till they were final high school/ university. A woman's life expectancy in Australia is 85. Plenty of time after bringing up a family for women to be effective, hard-working politicians. We need some good older women in there. Look at the Queen! She's 93 now, and has worked since she became queen at age 25, raising 4 kids along the way. Yes, she had help, but she did a lot of hard work herself. She should be a role model for women in government - especially on the conservative, monarchist side.

Thank You for all your contributions so far.

They are appreciated.

It is good to read differing opinions.

I'd just like to add a few more thoughts on
some of the problems that we're faced with
today in the world of politics.

In earlier times it was common to see much
larger percentages of the voting population as
members of political parties. Today we see a
fraction of those figures. Membership of
political parties has declined.

This has forced parties to look to other sources of
financial support, notably from corporations, and
private benefactors.

This feeds the problem of distance from ordinary
citizens creating a vicious circle. The closer some
parties get to business the less they seem to care
about the needs and wishes of the ordinary voter
or party member.

This in turn feeds into the declining trust of
politicians. A recent survey found that only a small
percentage of voters thought that politicians could
" almost always be trusted." The very word - "politician"
for some has become a byword for sleaze, self-serving,
narcissism and incompetence.

Long gone are the days when politician meant "public
servant"and when public service meant putting to one
side one's own needs and interests in favour of the
country. This has given the emergence of populist
anti-politics parties like Pauline Hanson's One
Nation. Parties that are led by figures who trade on
contempt for political elites.

Interest in politics today also differs from the past.
Voters no longer seem to care about politics as is
usually defined. They're more interested in
mainstream politics when it is a story wrapped in a
negative, showing politicians in a bad light doing bad
things to bad ends.

slagging off the lady
Belly,
I wasn't, I merely see a female that hasn't really done anything noteworthy for the Nation as yet !

Individual,

Glad that your intentions were not to slag off
on the lady in question. However perhaps you
do need to look into her achievements a bit
more closely before making the comment that
she has achieved nothing for the country as yet.

She's been in parliament for 21 years and she has
achieved a great deal.

cont'd ...

Individual,

For your information:

http://www.tanyaplibersek.com/record

Plibersek's own website ? No wonder it paints a great picture !

Individual,

I choose her website because it's a shorter and
more succinct summary of her achievements.
However you can Google wikipedia or any
other website about her. The facts remain the same.
They're not made up.

Ok, she's done some of what she was employed for & got handsomely compensated for. Next !

Individual,

They all get "handsomely compensated,"
but not all deserve to be. She does.

Foxy you might believe we want more women in parliament, although I wonder why any Victorian would after Kirner. However if you think about you would realise it is a pretty bad idea for Labor.

Sure Brown & his stupidity had an effect, & crazy Shorten policies did not help, but it is highly likely it was the entirely incompetent job the Labor girls club in Qld parliament was at least as large a factor.

It is not just the Adani mine they got so wrong, but their whole direction that is wrong. They spend so much effort pleasing the radical ratbag greenies, that they alienate the majority. Governing for the fringe is a pretty quick way to get chucked out.

The fact that not one of them could count to 20, with their shoes on does not help much either.

Dear Hassie,

We are supposed to have a representative democracy.
So our members of parliament should reflect this.
Currently they don't.

As for your pointing to the incompetencies of some?

Incompetence is not restricted to just one gender.
There are many currently in parliament who go in
for the wrong reasons and who are thoroughly
incompetent.

They find the life irresistible. They want to be in it
all their lives. We have the seat-warmers, the hacks,
the careerists, the adventurers. What we need is people
who want to make a difference. Who want to make reforms.
Who want to improve things for the country and its people.
People with vision. People with the capacity to achieve.
And gender should not be a limitation.

It looks like this discussion has run its course.

Thanks to all the contributors.

I'm due to go into hospital again on Monday
so I shall be away for a while.

Be kind to each other and as they say -
Look after you.

Dearest Foxy,

Our thoughts and love go with you :)

Joe

Good luck Foxy.

Dear Joe,

Thank You.

Dear Hassie,

Thank You as well.

Foxy said-

We are supposed to have a representative democracy.
So our members of parliament should reflect this.
Currently they don't.

As for your pointing to the incompetencies of some?

Incompetence is not restricted to just one gender.
There are many currently in parliament who go in
for the wrong reasons and who are thoroughly
incompetent.

They find the life irresistible. They want to be in it
all their lives. We have the seat-warmers, the hacks,
the careerists, the adventurers. What we need is people
who want to make a difference. Who want to make reforms.
Who want to improve things for the country and its people.
People with vision. People with the capacity to achieve.
And gender should not be a limitation.

Answer-

Malcolm Turnbull talked of the limitations of power- perhaps implying that it is the system not the individuals that are at fault.

"People with the capacity to achieve" - sounds like Foxy favours a meritocracy. The universities corruption of "merit" could be problematic here.

"gender should not be a limitation"- a return to the gender politics that have led to many of the current issues.

There seems to be a theme with Foxy here that "change is good"- this implies that tradition is bad.

Fascinating.

Yes Foxy good luck while you are away... we'll be thinking of you.

Dear CM,

Not all change is good and certainly not all
traditions are bad. I did not mean to imply that.

Most of us challenge ourselves to get out of our
comfort zones. That's how we learn. But, also
we like some things to remain the same.

Change is a paradox. We can have both favourable
and unfavourable attitudes towards change as well
as the desire in certain cases to maintain sameness.

Change is often feared - the fear of the unknown
because we can't anticipate the outcomes.

This morning I watched "Songs of Praise" on the ABC.
It was set in Harrogate, Yorkshire. A glorious setting.
An uplifting program. A place of so much history. Yet
in this historical setting the latest techniqies are
being used in the schools for students to be taught
the love of music and religion - thereby combining
the best of both worlds - tradition and change in the
way traditions are applied.

Thank You for contributing to this discussion, and for
your kind words and wishes. They are
appreciated.

Re "change is good".

The nation of Australia is the result of change - massive change: in the people of this continent, the environment, the economy, the technology. We've rejoiced in change (sometimes we've recognised some negative side effects, and we've changed to fix these).

I've just pulled a book off my shelves 'The Great Jubilee Book The Story of the Australian Nation in Pictures', published in 1951 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Federation. Throughout, change is praised: 'reforms that led the world', 'a revolution in communications', 'immense social changes (women found a greater freedom)', 'Australia grows up', 'new marvels appeared, great deeds performed', 'new experiments'. This book is not unique - many past milestones were greeted with similar books extolling the development of Australia and the Australian people. We have always been early adopters of technology and social change, and sometimes we've led the world.

So what's different now? Why are we scared of change, and fall back on 'tradition'? Our Australian tradition IS change - progress. If we really want 'tradition' , well let's go back to the horse and cart, no votes for women, or for working men. Who would have thought 'progressive' would become a dirty word? It's not just Australia. Western Civilisation itself is the result of change - it is often contrasted, positively, to unchanging mediaeval societies.

The nation of Australia is the result of British traditions not change.

Change is a source of risk and instability and needs to be managed. Change can be feared- for good reasons.

As Foxy has said "Not all change is good and certainly not all traditions are bad. I did not mean to imply that".

Hi Cossomby,

You mean change for its own sake ? Every change is good ? Nothing old is worth keeping - including Aboriginal culture ?

In real life, dear, we have to make hard decisions, and often compromises, and amidst many possible unknowns. We have to weight up whether we continue to do things in a certain way, with variations, or junk it entirely for something new and untested. Sometimes we need to change, sometimes we need to critically assess the dubious value of a change and perhaps decide not to. In real life, there are no iron rules on those lines. We have to weigh EVERYTHING up.

On top of that dreadful situation which forever plagues us, is the realisation that no option is perfect: every decision we make is likely to throw up more problems, hopefully fewer than it resolves. And actions often/usually/sometimes have completely unforeseen consequences.

It's a bastard of a world. But it's the only one we've got.

Cheers,

Joe

I agree that not all change is good. My parenthetical comment was referring to such things as the attempt to do away with Aboriginal culture.

But the point I was making is that the dichotomy change v tradition is not valid when change aka progress is a major component of our cultural tradition.

Posted by Cossomby, Sunday, 26 May 2019 10:13:11 PM

But the point I was making is that the dichotomy change v tradition is not valid when change aka progress is a major component of our cultural tradition.

Answer-

You seem to be saying that because change is our tradition- change doesn't contradict tradition. I wouldn't agree that change is our tradition- though sometimes it could be presented that way- like in the coffee table books Cossomby reads.

One point I want to make:
Religions are based on scripture that never changes;
- Written in stone, their ideas are not negotiable -

But societies (or the people themselves) are more open to change.

We have the tools we need;
We have the ideas of 'Democracy' the 'Socratic method' and the 'Harm principle'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

We need to transcend Abrahamic religions;
And by that I'm not saying that we need to all agree God does or doesn't exist

- I don't know if God exists or not -

But we need to see all of these religions are flawed;
- At war with each other and on a collision course -

- And the missing component is 'Ethics' -

That's why Christians are harming and harassing people at abortion clinics,
They think the 'ends justifies the means', but they too have no ethics.

That's why Muslims are throwing homosexuals off the top of buildings.
They think the 'ends justifies the means', but they too have no ethics.

And that's why Jews think they are Gods chosen people but can murder others to re-establish the historical boundaries of Israel.
They think the 'ends justifies the means', but they too have no ethics.

The religions of the sons of Abraham;
Edom, Ishmael and Isaac;

I think they're all flawed and little deranged.

- They're all capable of displaying an 'ends justifies the means' mentality for their beliefs - thus they're all capable of displaying a lack of real ethics -

- Written in stone, their ideas are not negotiable -
Armchair Critic,
Sadly though, they're still deliberately & opportunistically misinterpreted !