Monthly Archives: March 2012

Happy International Women’s Day, But Sorry Quotas Still Aren’t the Answer

Today, Thursday the 8th of March marks a very important 24 hours in the international calendar of days, a day for roughly half of the world population, women. To all women, my mother, sister, friends, followers and strangers I wish you the happiest day today on International Women’s Day.

Women are an integral part of society, without whom there would be no future population unless we suddenly discovered and were legally and ethically allowed to clone human beings in place of the natural act of reproduction. Women are the givers of life, they go through about 9 months of mood swings and childbearing weight gain and then hours of pain to bring new life into the world. For that alone women deserve unending praise and awe the world over.

For the integral part that women play in society, not just in childbirth but in the broader day-to-day motions of life, women, even in a prosperous nation like Australia, are still not treated as equal to the fullest possible extent. There is a low concentration of women in senior management roles and women are still not paid equally to men, even though that statistic is slowly creeping up to the parity line. The equal pay case success in the community services sector will certainly aid that important aim.

While women are not on an equal footing with men in positions of authority, that has certainly been evolving over recent years in Australia. We now have a female Premier of Queensland, even though that is about to end, a female Governor of Queensland and other states, a female Governor-General and even a female Prime Minister. One of the most powerful bank bosses in Australia is also of the fairer sex, namely Gail Kelly from Westpac and over time the representation of women in these positions will surely continue to grow.

The question is what is the way to achieve greater representation of women in the workplace? There continues to be a debate in this country, made even stronger and more public on days like this as to whether or not quotas on boards or in political parties is the answer.

The quota argument says that businesses must choose a certain number of women from a pool of candidates of men and women for board and senior management positions after appointing a maximum number of men, regardless of exact levels of experience and skill base, a kind of positive discrimination for the workplace if you will.

Quotas simply are not the answer, not forced ones at least, voluntary ones are a totally acceptable option for businesses to undertake to implement because there are certainly always a suitable array of female candidates available for any role in any occupation, whether it be at board level, senior management or otherwise.

Merit is by far and away the best option for the appointment of women to any role, the problem is that women are often overlooked for equally meritorious male candidates for various reasons, none of which are suitable and are often very discriminatory.

Merit in a perfectly pure sense should allow for the equal allocation of positions to women, particularly with women taking up a large percentage of undergraduate and further degrees, particularly in the recent decade or thereabouts.

To be able to use merit effectively though, to the advancement of women requires a change of mindset on the part of employers from the frankly pre-1950s view of women that must surely continue to exist in some businesses across the land, most notably in the higher echelons of management in these businesses.

Businesses must also openly encourage women to apply for positions, no matter what and do what they can within their means to identify and foster identified female talent, to keep them connected with their respective companies through practical measures that suit the circumstances of women.

To break down these barriers will not be easy but it will a better, more fair outcome for both men and women and will, in a pure way of the practise of merit, likely lead to the same outcome. Women deserve an equal chance at being chosen for jobs based on the skills that they have gained and practised to the same extent as men.

Again a thank you to all women and may all of you have a happy 2012 International Women’s Day and may the next year be even better for you in all that you do.

I’m Leaving and Oh WorkChoices…

Today it became clear that Jeff Lawrence, the boss of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) would be leaving the post in the near future. Some say Mr Lawrence leaves under duress, being forced out after losing the confidence of senior union officials in recent times, for being an ineffective communicator particularly when it comes to media. The ACTU boss on the other hand says that he was certainly not forced out of the position, reportedly last Friday and instead could simply not complete another 3 years in the job as he approached 60 years of age.

Going by experience it is almost certain that the former is true, the head union official was likely pushed out by those in the union movement unhappy with the way he has performed in the role since assuming the position.  It seems as though the coup has been even more seamless than those in the ALP that have highly involved the union movement in recent years.

The ACTU Secretary, by any objective or subjective analysis has been a very poor performer in the position since taking the reigns. His media presence has at times been so non-existent as to foment questions as to his whereabouts, well not really, but you get the picture. This media spotlight has consequently been grabbed by other media hungry union bosses, including such well-known men who now have a face like Paul Howes of the Australian Workers Union and Dave Oliver of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.

In a cruel twist one of the names touted to take over the position of ACTU Secretary is Dave Oliver, whose media profile has sky-rocketed in the past 12 months in particular, gaining regular access to the ear of Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister attempts to work through the manufacturing woes which have escalated since around the time of the GFC.

But it is not only the lack of media presence that Mr Lawrence brought to the role. The ACTU boss is very poor at delivery of message and was not even effective at displaying feigned anger, even at issues which usually provoke animated debate with the union movement, like labour market deregulation.

Since the “Your Rights at Work” Campaign too, very few people would be able to associate Jeff Lawrence with any particular high-profile public relations campaign on any workplace related issue, no matter how hard they tried.

Predictably, on announcing his departure as a union boss, Mr Lawrence took the opportunity to have an ineffective prod that came across almost as a pat at the business community who are calling for some flexibility in the workplace.

The union movement, still obviously cocky from their very effective campaign against the Howard Government WorkChoices legislation, which in large part led to its downfall, think that any tinkering with the Gillard Government’s  “Fair Work” laws equates to a wholesale return to WorkChoices, so the ACTU Secretary obviously could not resist temptation.

A return to WorkChoices is never going to happen, the collective pants of the Coalition are scared off permanently save for a desire for some meagre flexibility changes which would not even qualify as the ugly cousin of that divisive thing called WorkChoices. But hey, what do the unions have to talk about which scares people en masse if they don’t have something which actually does like WorkChoices? Not very much.

ADFA, No Scapegoat There, This Time…

The Gillard Government, via its Defence Minister, Stephen Smith has announced, albeit in an abbreviated fashion, the findings of no less than 6 separate inquiries into Defence Force culture in the wake of the so-called “Skype sex scandal” which saw a young female Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) cadet filmed in the act of intercourse. This disgraceful act was then transmitted to other ADFA candidates via webcam on Skype. This event triggered the series of committees and inquiries which reported today.

A number of complaints came to light in the wake of the announcement of this serious of inquiries, showing that the Defence Force has much work to do to stamp out inappropriate acts and indeed the event which precipitated the flood of reviews into the Defence Force became subject of a criminal inquiry which is ongoing.

The findings of the reports, including the DLA Piper Review will see further investigation into what the Secretary of the Defence Department  Duncan Lewis called “plausible allegations” arising out of the initial examination of near to 800 complaints brought to the notice of the Review. These investigations date back to allegations of inappropriate behaviour as far back as the mid 1900’s and may well see a stream of criminal cases brought in the future.

A new body has been recommended by DLA Piper to investigate the claims along with a possibility of an apology to complainants and even compensation floated as potentially appropriate methods of rectification. Surely though, allegations of significant veracity should be referred directly to an independent investigative body like the police, not some body, no matter how “independent” set up by the Australian Defence Force. Yes, many cases may fall outside the statute of limitations and they should be dealt with in a swift and appropriate manner but where possible, all suspected criminal behaviour should be a matter for the police.

In the wake of the events which brought all this action into being, the Commodore of the ADFA was stood down pending an investigation into the propriety of his actions following the grievous incident involving the female cadet. This inquiry found that Commodore Bruce Kafer had no case to answer for his actions.

So there is to be no immediate scapegoat for the terribly damaging events that have occurred within the Defence Force and particularly the ADFA in this case. The Commodore who was in the position of highest authority will escape punishment for overseeing and not being able to identify and respond to what is a sick culture within areas of the Defence Force at the very least.

It remains to be seen whether any one individual or series thereof will be held responsible for events involving ADFA or those who have allowed the culture in the wider ADF to continue will be made to be responsible for their dereliction of duty. This certainly differs from previous practice in government where someone, usually of relatively high office is made a scapegoat, a smokescreen to distract from broader action which can be politically painful, but hey, we may have another apology or a further review and don’t we just love those…

Finkelstein Would Kick Up a Stink Online

Bloggers of even middle of the road status beware, Ray Finkelstein QC and his media inquiry believe that we as a collective society are a flock of sheep who will follow opinion we read in a sheep like manner. The inquiry also assumes that what bloggers do is provide a news service. It seems, if the recommendation gets implemented by the Gillard Government, that bloggers will be subjected to the same purview as print and other media.

First it must be said just how incredibly stupid it is to classify what is written in any blog as a news service of any sort, no matter how factual the content. A blog is always formed of opinion which is gleaned from facts which are broadcast in different forms. It can too be the case, that blogs do not base arguments on facts in purveying arguments, but they can be easily found out.

The media inquiry headed by Ray Finkelstein QC recommended that bloggers whose site has more than 15 000 hits per annum be subjected to the News Media Council which would police all forms of information media, including television, print and online media. Aside from the fact that blogs are not utilised as a news service, 15000 hits would undoubtedly take in a wide array of political blogs, both amateur and professional.

One obvious question arises immediately and that is, how on earth will a media regulator know when a particular website reaches the threshold for monitoring of balanced commentary? Will they have the power to contact site administrators to determine when a blogger meets the policing requirements? Or will it be up to the individual author or site manager to self nominate? Either way, how stupid.

The onus would be on these bloggers, likely too this very website, to break from their respective market niche  or ideological bent and provide “fair and balanced” commentary, again deviating back to providing basically a news service when all a blogger does and does best is become a polemicist.

Not only this but it would likely turn some bloggers into more bland and harder to read communicators if they were forced by some sort of but not really independent body to report rather than rant. Every blogger knows that it is much easier to communicate your point when you feel strongly about it.

I have little problem with the actual news provided by television, print and online news media being of a “fair and balanced” nature, based on reporting fact rather than opinion, but then, who is it that determines just what is fact and what is complete nonsense? Some part government, part privately appointed body? I think not.

It would be a very dangerous move for an already on the nose Gillard Government to act not just on the recommendation for a News Media Council but to couple that with the body being given the power to strip people of their opinion because their blog has a mid-range level of popularity. It is frightfully clear that those on the left do not believe the individual has the power to think for themselves and that goes along with their ideology but to tell people who may have a a somewhat popular blog that they cannot have an online opinion, well that just stinks.