The shadow ministry, announced by the newly elected Opposition Leader Bill Shorten yesterday, has more than twice as many women as the government’s frontbench.
Labor now has 11 female shadow ministers, with Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong given senior leadership positions as the deputy Labor leader and the leader of the opposition in the Senate respectively.
Shorten pre-emptively explained that his ministry would be much more diverse from a gender perspective than Tony Abbott’s on Monday night. “I reject the assumption that merit is more located in the brains of men than women,” the new leader told Sky News.
Indeed the pool of people from which Shorten will appoint his cabinet has 11 females to 19 males. However yesterday the former speaker of the House of Representatives, Anna Burke, publicly rejected the idea that Labor supports the advancement of women or operates as a meritocracy. In an opinion piece published in The Guardian Burke wrote this:
“Yes, I am bitter and disappointed – I declare that upfront – but it does not deflect from the process. Of course, it is wonderful to see both Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong being awarded such elevated positions within the party, but our process remains one where the most senior women in the Labor party were accorded no positions going forward, and no ability to actually argue their case and demonstrate why they would make the best candidate based on immediate past performance.”
Burke, who missed out on a position in the ministry, argues that factions have won over merit and says that Shorten has failed to deliver any real progress for women in the party.
This morning Tanya Plibersek defended Shorten’s selection on ABC radio.
“[Ms Burke] has missed out on a frontbench position so I suppose you have to understand that she’s speaking from a place of disappointment,” Plibersek told ABC radio. “Anna’s criticism that this is about blokes looking after themselves I don’t think is borne out in the fact that we’ve got 11 women on our frontbench.”
Burke concludes her article with this:
“I once asked a former leader how he had made his selection for ministerial positions, which he stated was on merit. I then asked how he had compared my performance against the other candidates, and he left me stony faced. Perhaps my audacity in asking this, and again asking for a vote today, demonstrates that I don’t like accepting what is given to me as a fait accompli. But if someone in the tent does not test the boundaries, who will?”