It was a rare moment on the ABC’s Q&A last night when three female panelists joined the discussion.
While the panel show has featured all-women panels previously, to specifically discuss women’s issues, its number of female guests during regular shows has rarely outnumbered men.
The three women who appeared on last night’s panel demonstrated why more women should be there: not because it’s the ‘right’ thing to do, or because the panel needs a token woman, but rather because the input of women actually matters when it comes to discussing national issues.
Indeed, as panelist Lisa Wilkinson said in response to a question from the audience about quotas being a form of ‘reverse discrimination’: “It’s interesting that question comes from a man because maybe you would have to be a woman to get exactly what this is all about.”
And that’s the point about seeing women visible in the media, and having women represented at all levels of business, the community and politics. Last night’s discussion gave a significant amount of time to quotas and potential changes to gender reporting guidelines for companies with fewer than 1000 employees, but that’s not the sole reason why women needed a voice on the panel. Other issues discussed such as changes to racial vilification laws, the Chinese appetite for Australian property and Indigenous quality of life also require multiple female perspectives. And, sometimes, you need to be a woman to get what it’s all about.
The three women, who in addition to Wilkinson included media editor of The Australian Sharri Markson and Indigenous advocate and scholar Professor Marcia Langton, demonstrated there is no one single female perspective. They didn’t all agree on the issues discussed and all brought their own unique views and talents.
However, on the subject of quotas, these three women did share some similar views and, along with shadow treasurer Chris Bowen, came up against the Attorney-General Senator George Brandis who refuted the need for the Liberal party to introduce quotas. “I think if you’re against discrimination then as a matter of logic you have to be against reverse discrimination,” said Brandis.
Brandis went on to explain that he sits opposite Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in the party room and declared the Liberal party is gender blind, adding that when it’s comes to pre-selection it’s actually an advantage to be female on both sides of politics. He added there are plenty of women involved in the Liberal party, especially as advisors to the Prime Minister.
Chris Bowen said that positioning the debate as one about ‘quotas versus merit’ is the wrong way to look at it. “That would imply there’s only one woman in the Liberal party with enough talent to be in the Federal cabinet,” he said, adding that he knows of plenty of women who’re being overlooked.
Wilkinson agreed, saying the fact there’s just one woman in the Federal cabinet proves the merit system doesn’t work. “Tony Abbott said there’s a lot of them knocking on the door. Well Tony Abbott needs to understand they’re not there to sell Avon. They’ve actually got talent that needs to be recognised. There was also the argument put forward that they don’t have the experience. Experience only comes when you get a chance in the first place.”
I’ve highlighted the debate on quotas above due to its relevance to Women’s Agenda. But all the issues discussed last night benefitted from featuring a more gender-balanced panel.
Featuring one woman on the panel would have seen her offering a single female perspective, featuring three women showed involving women in the debate is more than just tokenism. It’s entertaining, informative and matters.
Should shows like Q&A have a self-imposed quota (beyond featuring one woman)?