Senator
Andrew Bartlett from the Australian Democrats was due to join them but
has missed his plane in Canberra this morning.
Unfortunately,
the Government decided not to send a representative, although HREOC
assures me that repeated efforts were made to encourage the government
to present its views at this important forum.
Before
I introduce the first speaker, I was asked as chair to make a few comments
that relate in a more general way to this session's topic on the anti-racism
policies of the political parties. Those comments concern something
at the heart of what this morning's speakers do every day of their lives
- represent their constituents.
Political
representation is of central importance to society and its systems of
governance - it is a key mechanism that connects the citizenry to the
government. It is at times complicated, because it can link the governed
with the government through various ways - different systems of democracy,
different electoral systems, the internal machinations of political
parties, agencies like HREOC, peak bodies and social movements.
In
a book I recently co-edited and contributed to last year with Marian
Sawer, called Speaking for the People - Representation in Australian
politics, we examined the challenges to political representation
that have been posed by the various social movements of earlier decades,
and how successful they have been in their demands for fairer representation
of 'groups' or 'identities' that were previously excluded or discounted,
such as those based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality and disability.
In
particular, we wanted to move away from the traditional typologies of
representation (such as whether representatives act as delegates or
trustees) and focus more on the significance and embodiment of difference
to the views and behaviour of representatives - to what is termed the
'politics of presence'.
One
of the themes of the book is that the traditional notion that any representative
can express or represent all citizens' opinions and policy preferences
(the politics of ideas) is no longer effective or adequate. Instead,
the contributors argue that an increased physical presence of previously
excluded groups and views in our parliaments, is increasingly necessary
if we are to have progressive change on issues such as those being addressed
at this conference.
Unfortunately,
there is still strong resistance among some sections of Australian society
to this view. Arguments about making our political system more representative
are often dismissed as being divisive, unworkable and unnecessary. It
is interesting to note, in light of the government's decision not to
send a representative to this session, that those who currently have
a dominant position in terms of representation are also able to make
strong statements by their absence. The converse to the 'politics of
presence' - the 'politics of absence' is a luxury that only those who
control the political agenda can enjoy.
I
do not need to detail to this audience where and how our political institutions
are unrepresentative. But at times I think we can forget just why it
is so important that our parliaments become more representative and
reflect the diversity of the Australian people. Let me briefly just
point to three:
