At its special rules conference on October 5-6, the ALP adopted a first: parliamentary quotas not just for women, but for men. The compromise motion passed by the delegated conference guaranteed women 40% of safe Labor seats and men 40%, with the remaining 20% to be "up for grabs". Before the policy change, the ALP had a target of 35% of safe seats to be held by women.
In a media statement issued by ALP lobby group Emily's List, former Victorian premier Joan Kirner said: "This affirmative action win puts the Australian Labor Party in the lead for gender equity, along with Sweden, Norway and Finland. These countries have used the 40% minimum target to achieve a critical mass of women in parliament and progressive social and economic policies."
But in implying that women are more well represented in Scandinavian countries because of similar quotas, Kirner is only telling half the story. Firstly, these countries have much more extensive quotas built in to their electoral systems. For example, in Sweden, the four major parties are required<%-2> to alternate male and female candidates on their party lists.<%0>
Secondly, the use of quotas has developed in these countries as increased female participation has developed. According to an October 2000 Women Around the World report by the US-based Center for Legislative Development: "Recent studies show that women have comparative advantage of getting into formal positions of power through a proportional representation system. Countries in the world where women constitute over 30% of parliamentarians such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Netherlands, have electoral systems based on proportional representation."
In Norway, for example, the 40% quota was only introduced in 1995, although women had constituted around 39% of the parliament since 1991. Women do better in party-list proportional represention (PR) mostly because parties are encouraged to run a "gender-balanced" team in order to appeal to a wider section of the electorate.
Party-list based PR is a much more democratic system than Australia's lower house first-past-the-post system. It encourages voters to judge candidates by the policies of the party they represent. Instead of a system where the candidate that can get over the line first takes everything, in these Scandinavian countries, candidates are elected roughly in proportion to the way voters voted. Not only do women do better in this system, but so do other oppressed groups, such as gay men and lesbians, who find it more difficult to get a majority because they face discrimination, but may be supported by a significant minority.
If Emily's List's highest priority was improving the representation of women in parliament, it would also be advocating a change in the electoral system in defiance of the ALP, which has supported changes to the election of senators which move in the opposite direction to PR.
Of course, even more important is the introduction of good childcare, reasonable working hours and equal pay that might enable more women to participate in the electoral process. It is worth pointing out that in Sweden and Norway, all these conditions are better than in Australia.
But even if more women were elected to Australia's parliament, it would not achieve progressive social and economic policies. In fact, in Norway and Sweden, with more than 40% of MPs being women, austerity programs have been introduced that are designed to wind back many of the progressive gains made by working women.
In Sweden, political parties advocating cuts to childcare, abortion services and single parents benefit have fielded 50% women candidates. These women vote to curtail the choices of other women without a qualm. Being a woman is no guarantee of being a feminist.
In Australia, as in these countries, what we need is not so much more women MPs, as more improvements in the lives of the majority of women.
BY ALISON DELLIT
[The author is a member of the Democratic Socialist Party.]
From Green Left Weekly, October 16, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.