My submission to the Victorian Greens regarding treatment of women in the party

Edited 3 March 2025

I am updating this to say that in spite of my cautious optimism in 2023, the situation did not get resolved. In 2024 I heard through general media that Janet Rice was retiring as Senator. I did not ever hear anything more directly from Janet or the Greens.

Now Samantha Ratnam is standing as a candidate for the Greens in the federal electorate of Wills where I live (she stepped down from her previous position as an Upper House member in the Victorian parliament and as leader of the Victorian Greens). Colleagues and friends of mine from political activism in this area are increasingly working with Samantha and in some cases actively supporting the Greens. I am feeling increasingly isolated and powerless and in danger of becoming reclusive.

Increasingly I think I will have to try again to resolve this situation in spite of all the difficulties. I am thinking about a vigil at the Greens office in Lygon St. This was Janet Rice’s office where I met with Janet and is now the office of Stephanie Hodgins-May, who replaced Janet as Senator. (I found out today it has been moved to Treasury place and cannot be accessed by the public).

Samantha Ratnam does not currently have an office. She previously had an office in Brunswick, which I visited in June to request a meeting with her. I was again fobbed off with the response that this was an administrative matter for the Victorian Greens. I was promised follow up but it did not eventuate. Bureaucratic nightmare of continually being fobbed off or ignored. 

Today I found out that my blood pressure has become dangerously high. I am sure stress from this ongoing situation is contributing because I am feeling very depressed and re-traumatised. 

A member of staff from Senator Hodgins-May’s office has promised to follow this up with the Victorian Greens. I am also seeing my doctor tomorrow and will discuss the situation with her.

Edited 18 January 2023

I don’t want to get too optimistic about this, but I think I may be starting to make some progress on this. Last year I had a meeting with Senator Janet Rice, and we agreed on the following points:

• Vic Greens processes are intended to promote non-violent conflict resolution
• They have not always worked effectively
• because of lack of skills and capacity and
• because some people have used them in a way they weren't intended, to target individuals
• People, including people such as myself, Alex Bhathal and Liz Ingham, have been hurt through lack of processes, failure of processes or misuse of processes
• It would be good to find a way of reconciliation for these historical failures
• The Greens have recently set up a lot of new systems and processes in the party that hopefully will work better
• An Inclusion committee has recently been set up, it is mainly focused on trans inclusion following recent disputes
• It is possible that it could look at some of these historical failures and look for ways of reconciliation
• In the past there were differences between 'social justice’ and 'climate/ environment' people in Greens
• Janet now believes that it is widely recognised in the party that these are interlinked, that fairness and environmental sustainability are both part of an integrated agenda
• She feels that a person like [name removed]* the former Convenor I was in dispute with, who had a commitment to environment but an authoritarian, top-down approach to authority, would not be seen as a suitable convenor for Vic Greens today
• Janet will follow up re inclusion committee and processes for reconciliation of historical hurt and damage [note - Janet later decided it would be better raised at State Council rather than that committee]

I think there is also some progress within my family circle towards resolving our differences over these issues but I won’t go into that further for privacy reasons at present. 

Won’t say anything further at present but gosh this has been a long and painful process.

[*edited after posting because not necessary to name the person here]

……………………….

Edited 5 May 2022. The introduction below was written in November 2021. Since then I have been able to talk to one Greens MP (without making any progress) and another person has agreed to talk to me after the federal election (21May). I am hopeful that with this person there is more hope of progress, so have not entirely given up hope, in spite of the statements below.

……………………..

(Introduction originally written 8 November 2021)

This is a copy of a submission to the Victorian Greens that I first made in May 2021. I have unfortunately given up hope that I will get a respectful response.

It is very sad that in spite of all the protests about poor treatment of women in politics, the Victorian Greens are still unable to talk about problems in their own party. I really don't understand why they are like this.

I, and other women, have been deeply hurt by the way we have been treated by the Victorian Greens. The party's own values, or even simple humanity and kindness, might suggest they could acknowledge this and try to do something about it. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.

Submission to the Victorian Greens regarding treatment of women in the party

(First submitted 17 May 2021, resubmitted 9 September 2021, resubmitted with correction 20 September 2021)

From: Valerie Kay

To: The Victorian Greens State Council

CC           Samantha Ratnam

                Adam Bandt

Tim Read (as of 20 September 2021)

Dear Victorian Greens

Following previous discussions with office-bearers in the Victorian Greens in recent years, I am making a formal submission regarding the treatment of women in the party. I make this submission as a citizen and community member, as an academic working on climate change and public health, and as a former member and office bearer in the Victorian Greens.

The context of this submission is that we face an environmental and climate crisis and are seeing worsening inequality, but in Australia we have a federal government that is unfit to deal with this situation. The current Morrison government still reflects the values of the white supremacist, hierarchical, patriarchal and exploitative social order that stole this land from First Peoples over 230 years ago.

While individual members of federal parliament, such as Lidia Thorpe, represent an alternative to this, there is no clear alternative at party level. All major parties, including the Greens, currently conform to the norm of a hierarchical organization led by a white man.

In Victoria, although the state party is currently led by a woman, the Greens have shown a lack of fairness and accountability in the way they have treated women. Numerous women (of whom I am one) have been effectively forced out of the Greens, and the party has failed to acknowledge this problem or respond to it.

The most well-known case is that of Alex Bhathal, former candidate for the federal seat of Batman (now Cooper).[i] [ii] [iii] The way this situation was handled by the party led to the resignation of many members and was the likely cause of a significant decline in support for the Greens in the following state and federal elections. Several women who have held significant positions left the party, citing concerns over party internal procedures.[iv] [v] [vi] [vii]

I am aware that men have also been affected by the problem of poor internal processes within the Greens, and that men have also resigned from the party over this. However, it appears those most prominently affected have been women. Women who have spoken out publicly about poor processes in the Victorian Greens include two former Members of the Legislative Council in Victoria (Samantha Dunn and Nina Springle), a former political adviser for the Victorian Greens (Liz Ingham), and a former office bearer and local Councillor (Lynette Keleher). To have these women, representing such a weight of experience in the party, speaking out publicly, should be of great concern. Undoubtedly there are many more, both men and women, who are concerned about the issues. Yet there is no apparent evidence that the party takes these concerns seriously.

The Victorian Greens ought to be a major area of strength for the party in Australia, but lost support in recent elections, while Greens parties around the world have been improving their position. There is no sign of the Greens party leadership taking responsibility for this.

Please note my criticisms are not directed towards Adam Bandt personally. I believe he is a good politician and holds good values. But goodwill alone is not enough. The federal and Victorian Greens must own the way women have been treated and deal with it openly. Women who have left the Victorian Greens may not come back. But the party must acknowledge their feelings and the hurt and harm that has been done and do whatever it can to make up for this.

The Greens have now preselected Celeste Liddle for the seat of Cooper (formerly Batman). This is a significant achievement, to have another Indigenous woman with an impressive track record standing for the House of Representatives, in addition to Lidia Thorpe in the Senate. However, it does not in itself make up for the way Alex Bhathal was treated. It would be unethical for the Greens to act as if women are disposable, as if the party can forget the damage done to one woman when another woman (no matter how good) is pre-selected. Having another great candidate makes it even more important to acknowledge the previous candidate who was so deeply hurt by the actions of a few members and the party leadership. It would be a great time to heal wounds in the party and begin to repair the damage done.

In this submission, although it concerns the way women have been treated, I am not attempting to speak on behalf of other women. I am speaking for myself. However, my research has explored how the treatment of women, and the global crises we are facing, are related, through the history of patriarchal social organisation. I believe this understanding may be helpful in clarifying what has happened in the Victorian Greens and how it may be resolved.

Crises of environment, climate and inequality are interlinked and result from the kind of patriarchal, imperialist, white supremacist and exploitative social order that was established in Australia following the British invasion. I have recently published, with my co-author Charles Livingstone, an article on political discourse in Australia.[viii] This includes analysis of the dominant ‘economistic’ discourse and how it is used to maintain power in Australia. The economistic discourse expresses the traditional values of white supremacist patriarchy, as exemplified by Scott Morrison.

In contrast, we identified an alternative discourse at local community level, of ‘socio-ecological’ or ‘ecosocial’ care. This discourse is similar to values the Greens have expressed since their beginning, of the need to care for both people and ecosystems. I would be interested in talking to the party about this discourse and how the party might offer it as a more convincing alternative to the current destructive economistic discourse. However, I would not do so in circumstances where I and other women have been deliberately excluded from the party.

I submit that if the Greens wish to represent an alternative to the exploitative patriarchal order in Australia – to provide real, grassroots leadership, for an effective national response to the crises of our times – they need to make significant changes. At national level, this would probably involve having a female leader, or at least joint male and female leadership, not as leaders of a hierarchical organization but as coordinators and facilitators of a truly democratic party. At the Victorian Greens level, it needs to involve a genuine and heartfelt apology to the women who have left the party, an acknowledgement of the patriarchal and misogynist influences within the party that contributed to this happening, and processes to ensure it does not happen again.

Detailed submission

A more detailed discussion and analysis of my own experiences and the reported experiences of other women who have left or been forced out of the Victorian party is below, showing how they reflect problems of patriarchy, hierarchy, misogyny and an overall lack of transparency and accountability in the party.

I left the party in 2004, due to concern about party processes. This followed my unsuccessful attempts, as then convenor of the Victorian Greens Women’s Network, to ensure female administrative staff were fairly treated during a restructure in the Greens office. Some years later, when I applied to rejoin, I found that internal processes in the local Branch were being used against me by anonymous members to ensure I could not be readmitted. Their complaints about me were never revealed to me and there was no opportunity for peaceful resolution, even though this is meant to be a key principle of the Greens. At the time, I spoke to the local media about this as I was concerned by the poor process and lack of accountability.

A few years later I re-applied for membership of the Greens and was refused again. This time, however, I was able to hold discussions with office bearers in the branch. I found that although they showed understanding of my position and suggested I could engage with the party as a supporter or ‘friend’, particularly in policy development, the fact that I had previously spoken to the media was seen as a mark against me.

Similarly, when Alex Bhathal was unable to have her concerns satisfactorily resolved within the party, she spoke to the media. In both cases this was held against us. In summary, we were not able to have problems effectively addressed within the party, but when we raised concerns publicly, this was held against us. This is of great concern as it suggests a lack of democratic accountability and a practice in the party of punishing whistleblowers.

Lack of acknowledgement or action by the party

Although there have been several reviews, of the Batman campaign and of following elections,[ix][x] there appears to have been no acknowledgement of the number of women who have left the party and spoken publicly about their concerns.[xi][xii]  In relation to Alex Bhathal, in particular, it appears the party was more focused on censuring her than it was on identifying or censuring those who anonymously attacked her, undermined her campaign, leaked confidential documents to hostile media, and seriously damaged the campaign and the party. The author Paddy Manning, in his book Inside the Greens, writes:

Bhathal was surely but slowly forced out of the party for talking to the media, unlike those who sabotaged the Batman campaign.[xiii]

This occurred even though it is known within the party who organized the ‘dossier’ of complaints against Alex Bhathal, and there are grounds for suspicion about who may have leaked the material to hostile media.[xiv] [xv] This is an extraordinary position for any political party to be in, let alone one that purports to stand for fairness, social justice, accountability and democracy.

Conflict with male authority and hierarchy

A common theme, in Alex Bhathal’s, Liz Ingham’s and my case, is that we had come into conflict with men in the party. In my case, the then convenor Adrian Whitehead felt I was wrongfully opposing his authority.

In Liz Ingham’s case, she made claims of misogyny and bullying against a sitting member, Greg Barber. Even though she was awarded a payout, Greg Barber has repeatedly denied her claims. Liz Ingham reported that officials of the Victorian Greens had tried to dissuade her from making a complaint and suggested there would be retribution against her for doing so.[xvi] It seems extraordinary that at a time when even Hollywood was finally learning to “believe women”,[xvii] the Victorian Greens were still trying to silence women and say that they would not be believed.

In Alex Bhathal’s case, Trent McCarthy appears to have borne animosity towards her because she supported Lidia Thorpe for the preselection for the state seat of Northcote.[xviii]

An associated factor is that we came into conflict with hierarchical authority in the party. In my case, I was in conflict with the party convenor, and part of my concern was that he was trying to make the party administrative structures more hierarchical. In Liz Ingham’s case, she was in conflict with a man who was an elected Greens MP and her ‘boss’. In Alex Bhathal’s case, she was known to have a record of opposing hierarchical concentration of authority in the party and had come into conflict with party officials over this previously.

Hierarchical ‘pyramid’ forms of organisation, where power and income increase ‘up’ the pyramid, are not neutral forms of social arrangements, but historically derive from patriarchal forms of authority, of which the ‘kingdom’ can be seen as the archetype. They have a ‘leader’ or ‘boss’, with subordinates ranked in decreasing order of power, and the majority of people (employees, members, the general population) at or near the bottom of the pyramid. This is still the most common form of work organization in Australia and one which many people regard as ‘normal’.

People may struggle with more democratic and flatter forms of organization because they have been brought up in a society where these are not the norm. Women who oppose hierarchical authority (whether exercised by a man or woman) are at particular risk of being seen as ‘difficult’ or ‘troublemakers’, because they are opposing a patriarchal norm.

Victim blaming

Following the problems in recent years, the Victorian Greens, particularly through the leader Samantha Ratnam, have promised party reform. However there appears to be no evidence of this, and there never appears to have been an apology to any of the women concerned from the party.

In Alex Bhathal’s case, and mine, there appears to have been victim blaming. The party appears to have officially endorsed this in my case by suggesting that my relationships with unspecified people had been ‘consistently fraught’. In Alex Bhathal’s case it appears to have condoned ongoing suggestions that she was ‘the problem’, by allowing repeated censure motions against her. I am also aware of individual Greens members who use victim-blaming rationales to explain why the party has not effectively dealt with the attacks on her.

Why women are blamed: understanding misogyny

Researchers who have studied violence against women have highlighted the common phenomenon of blaming women in cases of conflict between men and women.[xix] As the philosopher Kate Manne explains, this form of misogyny does not involve hatred or contempt towards all women, but rather arises from a social expectation that women should be supportive to others.[xx] Therefore, if there is conflict between a man and a woman, it is seen as the woman’s fault: in the worst case, she is seen to have provoked the man’s anger, in the more apparently neutral, she is seen to have handled the situation badly.

Kate Manne explains that this social expectation is shared by both men and women.  The feminist writer bell hooks similarly notes that women, as well as men, can be patriarchal in their values and may blame women when men are angry.[xxi]

It is apparent that while there was conflict between a man and a woman in the situations of Alex Bhathal, Liz Ingham and myself, some of the censure we faced was from women as well as men. However, even taking the least apparently ‘victim-blaming’ rationale, for example that we could have handled the situation better, there is no evidence that the men involved wanted peaceful resolution. For example, I know that Adrian Whitehead, and some of his supporters, wanted me expelled from the party for opposing him publicly.

In Liz Ingham’s and Alex Bhathal’s cases, it similarly does not appear that the men involved wanted a peaceful resolution. In Liz Ingham’s case it seems Greg Barber and his supporters wanted denial and silence. In Alex Bhathal’s case, the people associated with Trent McCarthy in the complaint against her wanted her expelled, and when they could not get that, at least some of them wanted her publicly shamed. If the response of a man who experiences opposition from a woman, and of his supporters, is to call for silencing, expulsion or shaming of the woman concerned, that is clearly not about peaceful conflict resolution.

Moreover, it sends a message to other women. The labelling of women in these cases as difficult, or disloyal if they talk about these issues outside the party, sends a message to other women that if they upset anyone, they can be subject to victim blaming, and the party will do nothing to support them. Thus, women are effectively told that they can be accepted in the political sphere as long as they don’t upset men or challenge patriarchal norms. How can real change in politics happen if women are given such messages? It is similar to Scott Morrison’s statement that women should “rise” but not at the expense of “others”.[xxii]

Undoubtedly there were attempts by Labor to use the problems in the Victorian Greens for political purposes, which led Samantha Ratnam to accuse Labor of dirty “smear” politics, but this also looked like an attempt to cover up real problems.[xxiii] [xxiv]  Overall, the way that the party responded to Alex Bhathal’s case, in particular, appears to have contributed to women leaving the party, and to voters, particularly women, deciding not to support the Greens.

Why ‘careerism’ is not the whole explanation

How have these problems arisen in a party which has a good track record in getting women elected to Parliament? Lee Rhiannon, in a Q and A session (14 May 2020) following the online screening of the film ‘The Candidate’,[xxv] suggested it is due to increasing ‘careerism’ within the Greens. Statements by other Greens members in the media suggest this is a popular explanation.[xxvi]

In this view, as I understand it, the Greens are believed to have been committed to inclusion and grass-roots democracy, but the increasing political success of the party in the early 2000s led to people being attracted to the Greens who were not committed to these values but were seeking political careers. Such ‘careerists’ were prepared to use methods such as creating factions for personal advancement, and leaking ‘dirt’ on others, to advance their own careers and get rid of potential rivals.

While I respect the experience and knowledge of those advancing this position, and believe that it partly explains the problems, I suggest that there is more to it than this. I suggest it is related to traditional, often unconscious, understandings of politics in a society which has historically been, since the British invasion of Australia, predominantly a white supremacist, hierarchical patriarchy.[1]

White men, particularly ruling class or educated men, were seen in this society as the people who had a right to own and control land and property, and profit from the low paid or unpaid work of others. This was supported not only by established patriarchal tradition in Britain and Europe, but also by the more recent enlightenment ideas of science and rationality,[xxvii] [xxviii] which saw white men as fitted to dispossess Indigenous peoples because they could ‘improve’ the land through rational land management practices, even though their impact in reality was environmentally destructive.

Adult white men were seen in this society as natural ‘heads of households’ and natural leaders in organisations and politics. Much of the law underlying this patriarchal system has been dismantled from the late 19^th century onwards, but cultural practice lingers much longer, particularly in the hierarchical organization of most institutions, where those ‘higher up’ have more power and wealth, and the highest positions are disproportionately likely to be occupied by white men.

Another aspect of this patriarchal society was that the public world was seen as the sphere of competition and conflict, where ‘rationality’ was supposed to govern conduct, but where ‘toughness’, aggression, anger and violence could also be positively valued (for example in war, but also in political competition). Qualities such as kindness and care for others were seen as belonging to the ‘private’ sphere of homes, the domain of women. Caring for others, and keeping loving homes for families, was seen as women’s responsibility.

Again, while these are no longer formally endorsed positions, there are still many people who see politics as a ‘tough’ area, where people are not expected to care actively for the wellbeing of others. Gendered understandings of politics can continue at an unconscious level, even when people think they are being objective or gender neutral.

What is fairness in politics?

People may think that ‘fairness’ in politics consists of achieving equal numerical representation, rather than changing the structures and processes. The limitation of such thinking is apparent in terms of First People’s representation. Indigenous peoples were almost destroyed by White Australia, before their numbers began to increase slowly in the early 20^th century. To think that fairness can be achieved by electing a tiny number of Indigenous representatives in a culturally White parliament is clearly unreasonable, even if numerically representative. Much more profound change is needed, as set out in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Achieving a fair deal for women likewise is not only about numerical representation of women in an institution designed by and for men. If parliaments are to be truly equal for women, they need to change.  At the most basic level, this has been illustrated by women bringing their breastfed babies into the Chamber, as Senator Larissa Waters has done. More broadly, the concept of Parliament, and public life in general, as an area of competition between men, from which they can seek refuge in the domestic sphere, can no longer apply.

Women still do most of the paid and unpaid caring work in society, as Covid19 has highlighted, but a progressive political party should be working to introduce an ethic of care in public life, including parliaments and political parties. The movement of women, Indigenous people and people of colour into politics should not simply leave the institutions unchanged, because what would be the point?

Recent events in Australia have highlighted how much politics in this country is still a ‘boy’s club’ and how damaging this is for women. Thousands of women have shown that they have had enough, through the Women’s March for Justice in March 2021.  If the Greens are to participate in and support this movement, it is imperative to be a party that is inclusive of all women, not a party that excludes women who are seen as ‘difficult’.

Rightwing patriarchal backlash and division in global politics

Globally, we have seen in recent decades a rise of right-wing parties led by conservative patriarchal figures, such as Trump (until his recent defeat), Johnson, Bolsonaro, Putin, Duterte, Modi, Hofer, Mareshki, Orbán, Wilders, Erdogan, and Morrison in Australia. [xxix] [xxx] The recent coup in Myanmar provides a frightening example of patriarchal power.

At the same time, in some countries, there has been a rise in Green parties.[xxxi] There has also been some increase in female representation in parliaments, and an increase in female leaders, including relatively young women, for example in some Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, even though globally women are still a small minority of government leaders.[xxxii]

In this sense there appears to be an increasing division occurring in politics. Female leaders and former leaders have warned that, although there has been some increase in female representation and leadership, we are at a dangerous time due to the rise of “strongman” politics, where the gains of women are at risk of being lost.[xxxiii]  If women are to resist and replace these patriarchal, militaristic societies that are destructive to human life, ecosystems and other species, we cannot allow ourselves to be divided into ‘good’ compliant women and ‘bad’ troublemaking women.[xxxiv] [xxxv]

In Australia, women’s representation in federal Parliament has increased slowly in recent years, currently being about 35%. However, women’s representation in leadership roles has recently gone backwards, with no women currently in leadership roles in the ALP, the Liberals or the Nationals. The Greens have Larissa Waters in a co-deputy leader role, but both the present and former leader are men. This contrasts with the earlier period when the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Greens leader, Christine Milne, were both women, and even the Liberals had a female deputy leader, Julie Bishop.

The sexist treatment Julia Gillard received is well-known, but Christine Milne also was subjected to gendered criticism and sexism during her career. It appears that since then, rather than presenting a clear alternative to right wing populism and patriarchal ‘father figures’, the supposedly progressive parties, Labor and Greens, have responded by becoming somewhat more conservative themselves, including by choosing male leaders.

In Victoria in the 2019 federal election all but one of the five candidates for potentially winnable or high-profile seats were men. I am not suggesting that this is a result of ‘conspiracy’. As the historian Judith Bennett puts it, patriarchy is not a conspiracy led by “a committee of white-haired men”[xxxvi] but rather flexible processes by which, for example, it may simply seem that men are the best candidates, or that women are not ‘choosing’ to stand. Women may in reality be deterred by seeing other women subjected to relentless personal attacks, as Alex Bhathal was. There is evidence that some young women were deterred from entering politics by the way Julia Gillard was treated.[xxxvii]

If women are leaving the Greens or are reluctant to stand for candidate selection or leadership positions, it may appear simply as ‘natural’ that candidates for winnable seats are predominantly men. Women who raise concerns may then be stereotyped as difficult or anti-men.

 

 

 

Lack of transparency and accountability allows Greens processes to be weaponized against women

Greens processes have been used to exclude women from the party. In a general sense this may be summarized, as Samantha Dunn and Lee Rhiannon have put it, as processes that are meant to resolve dispute being ‘weaponised’.

For example in my case, some members of Moreland Branch argued against me being readmitted as a member, on grounds that were not revealed to me, and against which I was given no opportunity to defend myself, or to talk about positive things I had done for the party. I do not know what they said, but it is the case that anonymous members of the Moreland branch provided information about me to the local Leader newspaper that was false. The Leader subsequently gave me an opportunity to rebut this, but it raises the possibility that these members may also have made false statements about me to the local Branch, under the cloak of secrecy.

These members were using processes of the Greens that are meant to support consensus and prevent crude injustices of ‘majority rule’. They are not meant to be ‘weaponised’ by allowing small groups to make statements about an individual, where there is no check on the truth of what they are saying and no opportunity for the person being attacked to defend herself. This is reminiscent of totalitarian states rather than democracy.

In Alex Bhathal’s case, her opponents in the Darebin Branch weaponised complaints processes that were intended for the peaceful resolution of disputes between individuals. Rather than attempting to resolve their disputes with Alex, her opponents organized a group complaint, including complaints which were trivial and insubstantial, with the apparent intent of making it seem as if there was a major problem. Party officials then seem to have compounded the situation by dismissing the complaints without any attempt to resolve the dispute on a personal level. Some members of the Branch then weaponised the process even further when they leaked the complaint to hostile media who used it to attack Alex and the party. The unsubstantiated accusations of bullying against Alex were likely particularly damaging because as a female candidate she was expected to be ‘caring’, as Kate Manne’s analysis explains.

Members and officials of the Victorian Greens have portrayed these problems as non-gendered, as simply being the kind of ‘dirty political tactics’ found in all parties, or as related to one ‘dysfunctional’ branch (Darebin).[xxxviii] This is a common form of denial, seen for example in references by journalists to ‘sex scandals’ in federal Parliament when what is actually happening is discrimination, harassment or sexual assault towards women.[xxxix] It is an attempt to deny or obscure the gendered nature of these problems. It should be impossible, however, to ignore or deny the women in the Victorian Greens who have spoken out or left the party.

What can the party do?

There appear to be limited guidelines or regulations in Australia regarding how political parties should conduct themselves to ensure fairness. In ‘older’ democracies, like Australia, such guidance was not provided under original constitutions or parliamentary practice because parties at the time were not well established and to some extent were regarded unfavourably. Newer democracies appear to have given more thought to how parties should regulate themselves to ensure procedural fairness and internal democracy both internally and at parliamentary level, and may provide useful models for the Greens.[xl]

In the case of the Greens, the fact that women are being selected and elected nationally may have obscured the fact that simultaneously other women, at least in the Victorian Greens, were being excluded. Yet, as Kate Manne suggests, these may be two sides of the same coin, giving the message that women can succeed but only if they conform to societal expectations of not upsetting anybody, especially men.

I urge the Greens to acknowledge the harm that has been done to myself and other women, and to the party, by these processes of exclusion. I urge you to set up a process for apology and resolution. I do not suggest that every woman affected would want to take part in this, but at least it would be a start. This process could assist the Victorian Greens to identify what went wrong, and how the party can become fairer and more accountable.

Finally, I will talk about the pain this has caused me personally. I am deeply committed to the values the Greens purport to represent. I worked hard for these values when I was in the party and have continued to do so since. In my professional life I have been researching and teaching about climate change and public health for years. Student evaluations of my teaching have been consistently positive.  It has been very painful to know that in spite of this work, I am stigmatised in the Victorian Greens as a trouble-maker, someone the party is better off without, someone whom people can say anything about with no recourse or regard for truth. I cannot think that this is what the party wants or stands for.

Yours sincerely

 

Valerie Kay

 

---

[1] In making this argument, I am drawing on my own experience in politics, both in the Greens and as a former Labor party member, researcher and adviser in the Victorian Parliament 1997-99. More particularly, however, I draw on considerable research on Australian politics and political discourse, both for my PhD thesis in public health and earlier research for an MA in Australian history.

 

---

[i] Luke Henriques-Gomez Former Greens candidate Alex Bhathal quits party, blaming 'organisational bullying'  The Guardian 1 February 2019, available at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/01/former-greens-candidate-alex-bhathal-quits-party-blaming-organisational-bullying accessed 22 May 2020

[ii] Martin McKenzie-Murray ‘Alex Bhathal and discord in the Greens’ The Saturday Paper 9-15 February 2019 available at https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2019/02/09/alex-bhathal-and-discord-the-greens/15496308007429?cb=1590111317 accessed 22 May 2020

[iii] Bianca Hall 'I have been loyal': Greens stalwart Alex Bhathal quits in disgust’ The Age 1 February 2019 available at https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/i-have-been-loyal-greens-stalwart-alex-bhathal-quits-in-disgust-20190131-p50uq8.html accessed 22 May 2020

[iv] Stephanie Anderson ‘Former Victorian Greens MP Samantha Dunn quits over party's 'toxic' culture’ ABC News 15 March 2019 available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-14/samantha-dunn-former-greens-mp-resigns-from-party/10902050 accessed 22 May 2020

[v] Bianca Hall 'The tail is wagging the dog': bitter Greens consider their options’ The Age 3 February 2019 available at https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-tail-is-wagging-the-dog-bitter-greens-consider-their-options-20190131-p50uvm.html accessed 22 May 2020

[vi] Richard Willingham ‘Nina Springle quits Victorian Greens over 'cultural issues' ABC News 9 April 2019 available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-09/nina-springle-former-mp-quits-victorian-greens/10984118 accessed 25 May 2020

[vii] Lynette Keleher ‘Victorian Greens overridden by a bullying and abusive internal culture’ Sydney Morning Herald 11 April 2018 available at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/victorian-greens-overridden-by-a-bullying-and-abusive-internal-culture-20180410-p4z8qb.html accessed 25 May 2020

[viii] Kay VA & Livingstone CH. A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition? ANZJPH. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13070. See also: Kay VA & Livingstone CH. Promoting environmental sustainability, equity and health in Victorian Primary Care Partnerships. Aust J Health Prom. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.281

[ix] Paddy Manning ‘Whither the Greens? How a reckoning looms for a party fighting to hang on’ The Guardian 4 May 2019 available at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/04/whither-the-greens-how-a-reckoning-looms-for-a-party-fighting-to-hang-on accessed 25 May 2020

[x]Adam Carey  ‘Greens' election review points fingers at enemies and own goals’ The Age 29 March 2019 available at https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-election-review-points-fingers-at-enemies-and-own-goals-20190328-p518m2.html accessed 25 May 2020

[xi] Samantha Ratnam ‘Lessons and learnings from the Victorian state election’ 14 December 2018 available at https://greens.org.au/magazine/lessons-and-learnings-victorian-state-election accessed 25 May 2020

[xii] Caroline Schelle AAP ‘Vic Greens deny toxic party culture, again’ Canberra Times 15 March 2019 available at https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/5957191/vic-greens-deny-toxic-party-culture-again/ accessed 25 May 2020

[xiii] Paddy Manning Inside the Greens 2019 p 422

[xiv] Paddy Manning ‘Green tensions build: The Batman by-election loss cannot be swept under the carpet’ The Monthly 22 June 2018 available at https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/paddy-manning/2018/22/2018/1529646013/green-tensions-build accessed 25 May 2020

[xv] Research Matters ‘Facebook posts seeking justice for Alex Bhathal’ March-April 2018 available at http://www.research-matters.com.au/publications/FacebookPosts.pdf accessed 25 May 2020

[xvi] Bianca Hall ‘ 'The tail is wagging the dog': bitter Greens consider their options’ The Age 2 February 2019 available at https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-tail-is-wagging-the-dog-bitter-greens-consider-their-options-20190131-p50uvm.html accessed 10 June 2020

[xvii][xvii] British Broadcasting Corporation ‘Harvey Weinstein timeline: How the scandal unfolded’ BBC News 7 April 2021. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672 accessed 17 May 2021.

[xviii] Paddy Manning ‘Green tensions build The Batman by-election loss cannot be swept under the carpet’ The Monthly 22 June 2018. Available at https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/paddy-manning/2018/22/2018/1529646013/green-tensions-build accessed 10 June 2020

[xix] Jess Hill See what you made me do: Power, control and domestic abuse Black Inc 2019

[xx] Kate Manne Down Girl: The logic of misogyny Penguin 2017

[xxi] bell hooks Understanding patriarchy No Borders (undated)

[xxii] Paul Karp ‘Scott Morrison wants women to rise but not solely at expense of others’ The Guardian 8 March 2019. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/08/scott-morrison-wants-women-to-rise-but-not-solely-at-expense-of-others accessed 24 March 2021

[xxiii]Noel Towell, Adam Carey & Gerard Cockburn ‘Women desert Greens, Ratnam blames Labor's 'dirty smear campaign' ‘ The Age 23 November 2018. Available at https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/women-desert-greens-ratnam-blames-labor-s-dirty-smear-campaign-20181123-p50hza.html accessed 22 May 2020

[xxiv] Richard Willingham ‘Greens' disastrous 2018 poll blamed on scandals, internal disputes, 'cashed-up' Labor’ ABC News 29 March 2019. Available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-29/greens-blame-internal-problems-negative-media-for-election-loss/10950124 accessed 25 May 2020

[xxv] Helen Gaynor (Director) ‘The Candidate’ Documentary film, 2019. Available at https://fan-force.com/films/the-candidate/ accessed 27 May 2019.

[xxvi] Paddy Manning ‘Green tensions build The Batman by-election loss cannot be swept under the carpet’ The Monthly 22 June 2018. Available at https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/paddy-manning/2018/22/2018/1529646013/green-tensions-build accessed 10 June 2020

[xxvii] Carolyn Merchant. (1989). The death of nature : women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. New York: Harper & Row.

[xxviii] Nancy Folbre, (2009). Greed, lust & gender: a history of economic ideas. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

[xxix] Annalisa Merelli ‘The state of global right-wing populism in 2019’ Quartz 30 December 2019. Available at https://qz.com/1774201/the-global-state-of-right-wing-populism-in-2019/ accessed 27 May 2020

[xxx]Ulf Mellström Editorial ‘A restoration of classic patriarchy?’ Norma: International Journal for Masculinity Studies 2017 VOL. 12, NO. 1, 1–4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2017.1299901

[xxxi] Emma Graham-Harrison ‘A quiet revolution sweeps Europe as Greens become a political force’ The Guardian 2 June 2019. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/02/european-parliament-election-green-parties-success accessed 27 May 2020

[xxxii] UN Women Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation (Factsheet) United Nations 2019 available at https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures accessed 27 May 2020

[xxxiii] Kate Lyons ‘Rise of the 'strongman': Dozens of female world leaders warn women's rights being eroded’ The Guardian 28 February 2019 available at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/rise-of-the-strongman-dozens-of-female-world-leaders-warn-womens-rights-being-eroded# accessed 27 May 2020

[xxxiv][xxxiv] Jill Matthews Good and Mad Women: The Historical Construction of Femininity in Twentieth-Century Australia ANU 1985

[xxxv] Anne Summers Damned Whores and God’s Police First published 1975, latest edition 2016.

[xxxvi] Judith Bennett History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism 2006

[xxxvii] Tory Shepherd ‘More women turning off politics after Julia Gillard was badly treated’ The Advertiser 14 July 2014 available at https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/more-women-turning-off-politics-after-julia-gillard-was-badly-treated/news-story/321177664cf100e0316704bad5c5f8a6 accessed 24 March 2021

[xxxviii] Noel Towell ‘ 'Gaslighted': Greens' fury at attempted 'takeover' of Darebin branch’ The Age 18 June 2018 available at https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/gaslighted-greens-fury-at-attempted-takeover-of-darebin-branch-20180618-p4zm3x.html accessed 26 March 2021

[xxxix] This can be seen for example in Paul Barry ‘Sexual politics’ ABC Media Watch 16 November 2020 available at https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/4c/12888562 accessed 25 March 2021. Paul Barry asks whether a “Four Corners’ expose on Ministers’ sex lives” was justified. The reporter Louise Milligan points out that there was a power imbalance between the male Ministers and female staff members involved, but Barry continues to portray the program as being about “sex scandals”, rather than gender and power.

[xl] Some notes by me from the literature on this issue may be found in a blog entry at https://fairgreenplanet.blogspot.com/2019/02/submission-to-greens-blown-off-course.html. Some relevant literature can be found in a special issue of Election Law Journal, including:

Anika Gauja 'The Legal Regulation of Political Parties: Promoting Integrity?' Election Law Journal 15(1) 2016

Anika Gauja 'The Legal Regulation of Political Parties: Is There a Global Normative Standard?' Election Law Journal 15(1) 2016

William P Cross 'Considering the Appropriateness of State Regulation of Intra-Party Democracy: A Comparative Politics Perspective' Election Law Journal 15(1) 2016

My experiences challenging patriarchy in politics

Introduction

This post is prompted by the current situation in federal politics, particularly by the action of Brittany Higgins, a former Liberal staffer in federal Parliament, who has reported that she was raped by a more senior colleague in Parliament in 2019. This happened shortly before the federal election. Ms Higgins suggests there was subsequently pressure on her not to take further action and to cover up the rape. There have since been other complaints and allegations about politicians, some of a very serious nature.

The media coverage and discussion on twitter has raised issues for me relating to my own experiences in politics. I've written about these in various place on this blog and elsewhere, but this has been fragmented, so I am attempting here to write the story of my experience and how it has affected me in the long term.

Broader political context

First I'd like to put this in a broader political context. The nation of Australia has its origins in invasion, in which First Peoples of the continent were forced off the land, and many killed, to make way for several white supremacist, hierarchical, patriarchal states. These states federated to create the nation of Australia in 1901. While much of the legislation and regulation underlying white supremacist patriarchy has been dismantled since then, Australia still operates as a white supremacist patriarchy to a large degree in practice, through hierarchies in which white men hold most high level positions of power and a disproportionate amount of land, property and wealth.

As a white person, I have benefited from privilege in this society. As a woman, I have experienced disadvantage, including direct and indirect discrimination, and occasional violence and sexual assault. 

In class terms, for most of my life I have been middle class, but I did experience some financial and other hardship in my teenage and early adult years, particularly when we lost our family farm, which was also associated with conflict, family violence and mental health issues.

Overall, I have had a good life and have benefited from privilege as a white middle class person. I want to acknowledge that here, before talking about specific harms that I have experienced as a woman in politics.

Experiences with the Victorian Parliamentary Labor Party 1996 - 2002

In late 1996 I accepted a job with the Parliamentary Labor Party in Victoria as a health and social policy researcher/adviser in the Office of the then leader of the Opposition, John Brumby. At the time I had recently completed a research MA in Australian history and had been working as a tutor and research officer at La Trobe and Monash Universities. I was not a member of the Labor party, although I subsequently joined. I was recruited through open advertising, not through the party. John Brumby's then chief of staff, Julia Gillard, who appointed me, gave me a contract that stated I was to be employed until the next state election.

I began work in early 1997. I found the working environment difficult, very pressured, and also very male dominated and 'blokey'.  There were frequent sexual jokes and innuendoes in the office and comments on women's appearance and sexual attractiveness. During the time I worked there, there were rumours of sexual assault by a male MP, but I don't know enough about this to comment further.

The atmosphere in the Victorian Parliament at that time was demonstrated by an incident shortly after I started work, when the then Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, referred in Parliament to John Brumby and his recently appointed Deputy, John Thwaites, as "the girls from Grammar". This was a reference to Melbourne Grammar, the private boys' school Brumby and Thwaites had both attended, while Kennett himself had gone to another private boys' school, Scotch College. 

In its boys' club misogyny, the remark summed up much of the situation on both sides of the Victorian Parliament at the time. While the Liberal and National parties were clearly male dominated and represented the wealthier classes in Victoria, the Parliamentary Labor Party was also dominated by four men who had attended private boys' schools, including John Brumby and John Thwaites, plus the Shadow Treasurer, Steve Bracks, and Shadow Attorney General, Rob Hulls, who had both attended Catholic boys' schools. 

During the time I worked there, I worked hard and was good at my job, as was ultimately acknowledged. However, I sometimes struggled with the work environment. I occasionally found it distressing and at one time offered to resign, though I subsequently withdrew this. I worked mainly for John Thwaites, at that time the Shadow Health Minister as well as Deputy Leader, and for John Brumby, as required, when he was speaking on health and social policy issues. I was particularly involved in supporting Brumby's campaign in regional areas, recognised as a key factor contributing to Labor's eventual election success in September 1999.

In March 1999, John Brumby was replaced as Leader by Steve Bracks, who appointed Tim Pallas as his chief of staff. Tim Pallas conducted a review of staff. He met with most staff during the review, including male colleagues in equivalent positions to mine, but did not meet with me. At the end of the review he called me in to his office and summarily dismissed me. 

Later two appointments were made, one of a social policy adviser at a more senior position than mine, and another researcher. Both were male. I think their appointments also partly reflected concessions that Bracks made to the left for their support, as he was from the right (as was Brumby). Between them they took up some of the work that I had done, including in areas like health and drug policy, where policy I had written or coordinated continued to be used, and was later published in a largely unchanged form.

My position was not a factional appointment and I was unaligned, although my views were left. Nevertheless, I had accepted that Bracks becoming Leader probably had consequences for me, particularly as I was mainly working for John Thwaites, his unsuccessful rival for leader. I would have been prepared for some downgrading of my position, perhaps being moved to a position as an electorate officer or similar. While my appointment was not 'political', and not factional, I nevertheless accepted that a leader has a right to staff they are comfortable with, and Bracks was not someone with whom I was particularly sympathetic. 

I was not, however, prepared to be made to wait throughout the whole review process and then be summarily dismissed without even being allowed to speak for myself. It was shocking and traumatic.

Subsequently I contacted my union, only to find that Pallas had already spoken to a senior official in the union and a deal had been stitched up. The organiser who spoke to me told me she was unable to do anything other than arrange a small payout for me. She suggested I take the payout and go on a cruise or something. Apart from being a painfully ridiculous suggestion for someone who was a single mother and whose youngest child had just started year 12, it seemed to exemplify an attitude to women as people who had 'feelings' and might benefit from a treat, but weren't significant as workers. 

Compounding it was a remark made by Tim Pallas in a subsequent meeting, to the effect that John Thwaites had said I would find it easy to get another job because of my skills. In other words he acknowledged I was good at my work, but that was irrelevant - I was still seen as disposable.

It took me some days to start collecting myself. By the time I found my contract, sought legal advice, and was advised that what I had been offered was below what I could have reasonably expected, it was a bit late, as I had already agreed in principle to the deal. Even so, there were points where the whole process could have been resolved. Two other MPs discussed offering me work, and I began working for one of them in another office at Parliament. One day I came in to visit my colleagues in the main office and talked to them about my view that I'd been unfairly treated. Tim Pallas obviously found out about it because he then banned me from entering the main office. After that I gave up the idea of continuing to work for the Labor party and took another job elsewhere.

The way I was treated still amazes me. If Pallas, Bracks and Thwaites had shown even the most basic compassion, the whole thing could have been resolved. But instead Pallas decided to treat me as someone who should be punished.

I looked into possible legal recourse, and decided that the Equal Opportunity Commission was the best avenue. Due to Kennett government legislation, I had very limited rights as an employee (staffers were officially employed by the Department of Parliamentary Services). It was also clear to me that I had been treated less favourably than male colleagues in equivalent positions, as I was aware they had been given the opportunity to speak with Pallas during the review. 

I decided not to pursue the case until after the state election, which was expected to occur shortly at that time, because I wanted Labor to win the election and did not wish to be a distraction, or for my case to reflect unfavourably on the party as a whole. However, the election did not happen until September, and I had to bite my tongue until October, when Labor finally took power. This was very difficult. It was particularly difficult during the election period, when policies were published, and I saw Steve Bracks and John Thwaites on television speaking words that I had written for them, while I struggled with depression and social isolation.

The extent of my trauma can probably be gauged from the fact that it took me a very long time, even after Labor won the election, to accept that my former colleagues were no longer working in the opposition rooms at Parliament house. I knew rationally, of course, that they were not, that Labor was now in government and my former colleagues were now in Ministerial offices or different circumstances. At a deeper level, however, my mind refused to accept that and was stuck at the time of my trauma for a long time. Even now, more than 20 years later, I still sometimes have hopeful dreams that it has all been resolved.

Ultimately I lodged two complaints with the Equal Opportunity Commission in late 1999, one of discrimination in employment and one of victimisation. The Commission subsequently refused the discrimination complaint, saying it could not be substantiated (partly I think because some of my former colleagues, who were at the time going through a process of review to see whether their employment would be continued in government, refused to support me). It accepted the victimisation complaint. I exercised my right to have both complaints moved to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and after a long and exhausting legal battle over more than a year, the Tribunal ruled that both complaints had substance and could proceed to hearing. The complaints did not go to hearing because after that the respondents (Bracks, Thwaites, Pallas and the Department of Parliamentary Services) agreed to negotiate a settlement and the matter was finally settled before hearing.

I agreed to a confidentiality clause on the settlement, against my initial wishes, for reasons set out in more detail here. Confidentiality clauses are a bad idea for many reasons, but were pretty much standard, and there was a risk of being seen as an unreasonable litigant if you did not agree to one. As stated in the post linked above, I have arguably breached this clause by revealing some of the terms, however much of it had already been reported in the media at that time (it was leaked from within the Labor party, I don't know by whom). Anyway it's not necessary to go into details - the discrimination case was settled essentially as a wrongful dismissal, and the respondents did not ever admit discrimination in employment, although victimisation was not disputed. I received a detailed written reference acknowledging my work, private apologies from Thwaites and Pallas, various other expressions of support, and a cash payment. The Department of Parliamentary Services undertook to introduce anti-discrimination training for members of parliament.

Later, in 2002, I tried to go to a community forum held by the Labor government, to discuss my concerns about the equal opportunity process with the Attorney General, Rob Hulls, and was refused entry. I made another complaint of victimisation following that incident, which again was settled before hearing. This was settled publicly, and the main outcome was that Steve Bracks agreed to receive a paper from me on equal opportunity processes. 

Later there was reform of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission. Some measures that I had called for were put into practice, although I don't know whether my paper contributed to that. A significant change was that organisations covered by the legislation needed to have equal opportunity policies and procedures in place. If they did not, that could be taken as evidence against them in the event of a discrimination claim. In other words, some of the burden of proof was put on to employers and managers to show they were doing the right thing, rather than on individual complainants to prove that they were not. This is appropriate in relation to legislation intended to correct widespread past patterns of discrimination. Moreover, employers and managers have much more power than individual employees, and can cover up relevant evidence, or put pressure on other employees not to provide evidence.

Did my action achieve anything?

Overall I think my action did achieve something, even though change is incremental. There are still problems in the Labor party, but it appears better than the conservative parties in relation to women in politics. Much of this is the result of pressure within the party, particularly from organisations like Emily's List, who support female candidates for pre-selection. However I think the actions  of individual staffers like me, who stand up when MPs within the party behave wrongly, is also important.

Long term harms

Some painful aspects of this for me remain. It had a long term impact on my mental health and through that on my family, and it affected my career, particularly that I was not able to do the work I wanted to do. It took several years for me to focus effectively on other avenues of work. It also gave me a reputation as a 'feminist trouble-maker' with some people, including some in the Greens when I later left Labor and joined the Greens in 2001. 

Bracks, Thwaites and Pallas remained prominent in public life, reminding me of the trauma I suffered. Although I received private apologies from Thwaites and Pallas, there has never been a significant attempt on their part (or that of Steve Bracks) at meaningful reconciliation. John Thwaites has remained influential in the field in which I now work, creating considerable awkwardness for me, rather than the collegial support I should have been entitled to. 

Overall I do not think any of the men involved has suffered professional harm, notwithstanding that in a broad sense I 'won' the legal action. I am not vindictive and do not wish them harm, but it is wrong that I, the person who was wrongly treated, suffered both psychological harm and career disadvantage, while those who did the harm experienced no disadvantage.

I have written extensively about patriarchy in my academic work, and this was a clear case of a woman coming up against a patriarchal organisation, as the parliamentary labor party was when I worked for it. I made a dent in the patriarchy I think, but the fact that in doing so I suffered more apparent harm than any of the men involved, is a cautionary tale.

My experiences with the Victorian Greens

In 2001 I left the Labor party and joined the Greens. This was partly because of my experiences in Labor, but mainly because of the Tampa incident and federal Labor's failure to take a principled position on asylum seekers.

During the time I was in the Greens I served as convenor of the Women's Network, cooordinated the national health policy committee and stood as a Greens candidate for the then Province of Eumemmering in the Victorian elections in 2002. I also did a lot of other volunteer work as a local Branch member. More details of my work for the Greens are available here.

I also became involved in some disputes, partly related to my previous history in Labor. My experience in Victorian parliament was recognised as relevant and contributed to me gaining positions of responsibility in the Greens, but some people also appeared to have ambivalent or hostile attitudes towards me as a former Labor staffer. 

When I first joined, I was still involved in the equal opportunity action, and appealed for support within the Greens. My appeal was for personal support, because the action was so difficult, and was on the basis that women have a right to be heard (not necessarily that we are always right). This position might possibly be better understood now after the #MeToo movement, but was not so well understood then. 

Some Greens members, through misunderstanding or anti-feminism, suggested I was trying to get the Greens to 'take sides' in a legal action or get involved in Labor's 'internal disputes'. One of these was Mike Puleston, an influential older man in my local Branch, and at that time co-convenor of the Branch. I believe Mike Puleston has been one of the Greens members who has opposed me for a long time, although it is difficult to know, because unfortunately Greens processes allow anonymous attacks.

The most significant dispute I had in the Greens was with the then Victorian Greens Convenor, Adrian Whitehead, around 2003-04. Adrian, with the support of State Executive Committee, proposed to restructure the staff in the Greens office. The key proposal was to create a new more senior position to replace the office manager position. All office staff at the time were women. I was then convenor of the Greens' Women's Network and it appeared the restructure was being done in a high-handed way and was likely to result in disadvantage to existing staff. (There is evidence that as organisations get bigger, they become more hierarchical and are more likely to appoint men to senior positions.)

The Women's Network put a motion to State Conference to defer any decision on the staffing restructure until further ideas could be considered. However, due to lengthy discussion on other items, the motion was not discussed. Adrian Whitehead said he was going ahead with the current plan and the new position would be advertised. I decided I had no option but to resign, as he was sidelining the Network, and I did so in an email to State Council outlining my reasons.

Subsequently the Executive did appoint a man to the new senior staff position (I am not personally criticising him) and the female officer manager lost her job. 

I did rejoin the party somewhat later, through State Council. I got a lot of support from members, but there was a small group including Adrian Whitehead who opposed me and said I should be banned from the party. I continued to have some reservations about the way the party was working and let my membership lapse in 2004, after the national health policy was completed.

Sometime later I applied to rejoin but was refused because some members of my local Branch objected. By this time the party regulations had been changed so that rejection of membership could occur at local Branch level. 

I don’t know who the people objecting to me were, or what they said about me. I had no opportunity to hear or respond to the objections. A few years later I tried again and was again refused. This time branch office bearers met with me to discuss, but I still wasn’t told the objections or who was making them. 

The officer bearers suggested that I could become a 'friend' of the Greens and become involved in policy development, but it seemed to me a ridiculous position for a political party to allow people to be excluded from membership because of unknown complaints by anonymous people, but allow them to be involved in policy development. I did, however, later do some voluntary work supporting local Greens candidates, prior to 2018, when Alex Bhathal was subjected to a campaign of undermining while she was Greens candidate for the then federal electorate of Batman (now Cooper). 

I won't go into detail about what happened to Alex, as there was widespread media coverage at the time. This article from the Guardian gives a reasonable summary of what happened and how Alex finally quit the party in disgust. I was absolutely shocked. I had known Alex and worked with her when I was in the party and was appalled by the way she was treated. Like me, Alex was subjected to anonymous attacks, although her case was worse than mine.

I know something about the attitudes of some people in positions of influence in the party who failed to support or undermined Alex (not those involved in the complaints against her, I don't know them), and I believe that disapproval of Alex as an outspoken women, and sexist victim-blaming, played a part in why the Greens were not able to resolve this situation. Alex, as a woman of colour, also has suggested that racism played a part.

I am aware of other women in the Victorian Greens who have made claims of discrimination or harassment, or quit in disgust at failures in the party. I started researching this in preparation for a submission to the party, which I am still preparing. Below are some links to media reports of four other prominent women in the Greens, in addition to Alex Bhathal, who have chosen to resign in protest at the culture in the party:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-tail-is-wagging-the-dog-bitter-greens-consider-their-options-20190131-p50uvm.html

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/victorian-greens-overridden-by-a-bullying-and-abusive-internal-culture-20180410-p4z8qb.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-09/nina-springle-former-mp-quits-victorian-greens/10984118

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-12/victorian-election-greens-woes-not-due-to-preference-deals-alone/10612276

I won't comment further on these here, because I have not spoken to all the women involved, and will be trying to follow this up in preparing the submission. However, they show that the Victorian Greens have not been able to deal effectively with discrimination, harassment and bullying of women in the party, in spite of the fact that they have a female leader in the Victorian Parliament.

I am not aware of any cases of sexual assault and rape in the Victorian Greens, however that of course does not mean there have not been any. There have been reported cases of sexual assault and rape of women in the NSW Greens. I won't comment further on that here, as I do not know much about it, but again it shows that even though the culture definitely appears much worse in the Liberal National Parties, none of the parties can claim to be exempt from these problems. 

Conclusions

My overall conclusion is that even though the patriarchal and misogynist culture of politics in Australia is worse in the conservative parties, the ALP and Greens have also had problems in this area, and women like myself and others who have taken action to address this are at risk of exclusion and punishment. The situation seems to exemplify misogyny as defined in Kate Manne's 'Down Girl'. 

In Down Girl moral philosopher Kate Manne argues that misogyny should not be understood primarily in terms of the hatred or hostility some men feel toward all or most women. Rather, it is primarily about controlling, policing, punishing and exiling the "bad" women who challenge male dominance. And it is compatible with rewarding "the good ones" and singling out other women to serve as warnings to those who are out of order. (From description by publisher)

In fact something very much like this was expressed to me years ago by Rob Hulls when I was working for Labor, when he said: 'we don't hate all women Val, only some of them'. It was a joke, but expressed a truth: men in patriarchal organisations believe that they are 'granting' equality to women, and that they have the right to decide which women are deserving and which aren't. This is exemplified in Labor and the Greens at federal level, where leadership is usually held by men, even in the Greens where women are the majority of MPs. When women such as Julia Gillard or Christine Milne become leaders, they face gendered criticism and undermining, including - at least in Gillard's case - from within their own party. Julia Gillard was widely liked and approved of within Labor while she remained in the Deputy Leader position. 

I also want to talk about silencing. There has been a lot of pressure on me over the years to be silent. In Labor there was at first the pressure of loyalty to the party, later the pressure of not speaking publicly while the case was on (this is a grey area but complainants are often advised not to speak publicly), then the pressure of the confidentiality clause. 

Then there is the social pressure, including from friends and family, to get over it, to move on, to put it behind me. This applies to my experiences in both parties. There is so much pressure in our society not to be a 'victim', but to be a 'survivor', to overcome the hurt and 'live well'. Women are subjected to pressure to be silent about the injustice we experience and the impact it has on us, and in a way this is all the more effective because of the stereotype of female 'weakness'. We resist that stereotype, and try to act as if we are ok, but this also means that the harm done to us by men and patriarchy is being hidden. It's a vicious circle.

Finally there is the question of why women don't support each other more. The 'divide and conquer' tactic of misogyny that Kate Manne identifies could not work if women supported each other. In my own case and in Alex Bhathal's case, I know women who could have supported us but didn't, instead resorting to victim blaming, to suggestions that we are 'difficult', that we somehow did 'bring it on ourselves'. 

Women need to support each other if we are to overcome patriarchy, and we need to support each other knowing that we are imperfect. I've thought a lot about why women don't support each other more and I basically think it comes down to fear. I agree with the idea of internalised  misogyny but I think fear is a greater reason. 

I remember as a 15 year old, when I started at a new school in  remote area of South Australia, seeing Aboriginal children vilified and shouted at on a school bus. I was horrified but I was also scared that if I spoke out the kids shouting would start on me, so I sat there, hating it but too scared to speak. I think many woman feel like that about patriarchy, hating it but too scared to oppose it. As Kate Manne says, singling out women like me as a "warning" as what happens to "bad" women is a way of maintaining patriarchy. I can only hope that more and more women will start to see this, to recognise that women like me, even though we are imperfect, don't 'deserve' the harm we have experienced in political life. 

Submission on the Climate Change Act 2020 proposed by Zali Steggall

Submissions on the Climate Change Act 2020, proposed by the independent member of parliament Zali Steggall, are being taken by the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. They were supposed to close today (27 November 2020) but extensions appear to be available. More information here https://www.zalisteggall.com.au/submissions_open_for_climate_change_bill_inquiry. 

I urge anyone interested to make a submission, even if short. This is a great opportunity to encourage parliament to end the 'climate wars' and take a non-partisan approach, which all MPs should have the responsibility and maturity to do.

My own submission is below - made in a very short time, but hopefully if necessary the committee will  ask for follow up information and evidence if needed. My submission obviously highlights my qualifications and experience, but I urge anyone interested to make a submission, because this is a matter that affects all of us, most particularly young people, and we are all entitled to have a say.

My submission:

Submission to the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy on the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020

From: Valerie Kay, PhD

Dear Committee members

Background to this submission:

-        In 2018 I completed a PhD on promoting equity, environmental sustainability and health in Victoria. A copy of my PhD is available through the Monash University library here https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/Promoting_equity_environmental_sustainability_and_health_frameworks_for_action_and_advocacy/6199379  and an article with some key findings is available here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hpja.281

-        Since 2014, I have been teaching in the unit MPH5042 Climate Change and Public Health in the Monash University Masters of Public Health course and am currently the Chief Examiner and Unit Coordinator in the unit https://handbook.monash.edu/2020/units/MPH5042. I am happy for this information to be publicly available in the submission, as it is already in the public domain.

-        Unfortunately due to the very limited time I have to prepare this submission, I cannot cite all the relevant sources for the statements in this submission, but would be very happy to provide further follow up information to the committee. If I can obtain the permission of the University, I may be able to provide in confidence to the committee some of the teaching material from the unit, which is in plain language and would be available at short notice.

As someone who has been researching and teaching in this area for over ten years, I am writing to urge you to support this Bill, and to suggest some amendments to strengthen the Bill.

Climate change is an unequivocal threat to the health and wellbeing of Australians, people of the world, and other species. People in Australian and elsewhere are already dying as a result of climate change, particularly through extreme heat events. Other risks, including from floods and other severe weather events, droughts and water shortages in some areas, bushfire risk, and wider range and novel forms of infectious diseases, are also increasing.

It is more than possible, it is unfortunately likely, that significant areas of Australia and other parts of the world may become uninhabitable for humans this century, unless we act now to reduce emissions and do as much as humanly possible to hold global warming to 1.5C.

Even at 1.5C, much of the Barrier Reef is likely to be lost, and at 2C it is likely that all will be. I cannot believe that committee members can stand by and let this happen, let alone face the possibility that your actions will be responsible for more deaths from climate change and a frightening legacy for today’s children and young people.

I say this not to scare committee members, but because my reading of the Bill suggests to me that even the drafters of this Bill, well-informed as they clearly are, have not yet fully understood the risks to health from climate change.

In order to address these risks, it is essential to have a non-partisan approach to climate change in this country. Findings from research outlined in the article linked above, strongly suggests that in the period 2009-16, particularly in the federal election year of 2013, health workers and community members were deterred from acting on climate and environmental sustainability by the politicisation of climate change in Australia.

The actions that they were taking were ones I am sure committee members, as representatives of local electorates, would strongly support. Their work involved projects to increase housing sustainability and reduce energy bills for low income community members, support community members in growing and sharing local fresh food, and increase active transport though walking and cycling. All these actions have direct benefits for people’s health, as well as a wide range of benefits from promoting a more sustainable, fair and socially inclusive society, and reducing carbon emissions. I am confident committee members would never again wish to see a situation where local community members were deterred from such worthwhile actions by the politicisation of climate change. It is imperative that Australia develops a non-partisan approach to climate change, and this Bill, proposed by an independent member of parliament, gives a chance to achieve that. I strongly urge you to support the Bill.

As noted, I also suggest that the drafters of the Bill have not fully recognised the degree of risk from climate change to the health of humans and other species. Similarly, it appears they may not have fully recognised the potential benefits to health and wellbeing from addressing climate change. They also may not have recognised the extent to which the science of climate change has been perceived as ‘top-down’ and remote, detached from the everyday experience of people’s lives. These factors are connected. There is research showing that when people realise the impact that climate change is having, and will have, on health, it becomes much more meaningful to them and makes them more likely to act, and support action, on climate change.

On the basis of this evidence (which, as stated, I am more than happy to provide to the committee), I make the following suggestions for amendments to strengthen the Bill:

S1 Objects of the Act

-          Clause (1) (a) should include reference to serious challenges to health and survival of Australians, other people of the world, and other species.

-          Clause (1) (b) should specify limiting global warming to 1.5C as the primary goal and restricting it to under 2C as secondary.

-          Clause (2) (f) should include ‘community’ as well as government and private sector

S17

-          (2) (a) should include risk to ‘health of Australia’s population’ first, before economy, and not confined to workers.

S18

-          (a) health effects should be first, not economic effects (climate change is genuinely a matter of life and death, and this should be recognised)

S30

-          (3) include benefits to health from emissions reductions, and savings from reductions in healthcare costs due to reduced climate change impacts

 S 37

-          (2) should also include experience and knowledge in social change, community participation and development, health impacts of climate change, and the health co-benefits of climate action and emissions reductions

-          (5) (b) a minimum of two members to be Indigenous Australians (appointing one person to represent previously marginalised groups can lead to further marginalisation on committees when the single representative presents, or is inhibited from presenting, viewpoints that appear to conflict with conventional or ‘mainstream’ perspectives)

 

Thank you for your consideration and my best wishes for the success of this Bill.

Valerie Kay

Long rambling post on coming out of lockdown

Have started to update this 14 February 2021, now in a new lockdown, hopefully only for five days. This is a work in progress which blogger is being completely weird about so I can't fix it right now but will leave it here just for a change

Originally published 24 November 2020 -  Haven't written anything on here for ages so thought I might do some kind of long rambling blog post about coming out of lockdown and everything I thought about writing over the last few months, partly to have a record, even if very imperfect, of a historic year.

What a year it's been. Started so positively for me with my visit to Myanmar (Burma) and travelling home over land and sea, as discussed a few posts back. Then the Covid pandemic really got going. Today Victoria has no new cases and no active cases, after an extended and pretty hard lockdown. How do you write about that experience? 

The thing I often wanted to do was a kind of photo essay on parks, and nature, because it was so important. So here is is, probably a bit random, but maybe I can use it as the basis for something more developed one day. 14 February 2021 - started adding captions

Coming home, just before the pandemic really got going: Overland Train from Adelaide to Melbourne 1 March 2020. The Overland was due to close, then got some more funding from Vic government (I think?) but could not run in 2020 due to pandemic and border closures. Was due to start in early 2021, not sure if it did, but as of now (14 Feb 2021) SA has again closed its border to Vic.

Community garden: it was great to get back to the community garden, but access was restricted shortly after I came home, due to Covid19, and became more restricted in the second lockdown (from late June in this area, as this suburb was a 'hotspot'). Even when we could only go down one at a time, for essential food purposes (maintaining and harvesting) it remained a great source of comfort, as well as food.

As autumn set in, people still wanted to use their gardens. Family members invested in a fire drum, which the kids loved, particularly toasting marshmallows.

Late harvest of tomatoes from the community garden. I used some of these to make a Burmese tomato salad with peanuts, which I'd learned in Myanmar. Highly recommend. 

I'm not entirely sure where this is 😀 but I think it's in Royal Park? I walked there a lot, especially after golf was prohibited and the golf course became available to walkers. Walking on the golf course in Northcote became so popular that when we came out of lockdown late in 2021, there was a movement in that area to keep the golf course for walking. Unsuccessful I think but interesting.

In the shorter days of autumn and winter, I walked often in the afternoon and saw many many sunsets. This and the next picture is Royal Park golf course (I wish it had an Indigenous name!) in the late afternoon

Not a great photo, but captures a lovely conjunction of colour with the Rainbow Lorikeets in the sunflowers. Rainbow Lorikeets are a native species that have adjusted well to urban life and as such are possibly pushing out other native species. But who could entirely mind when they are so beautiful? People became very interested in birds. When we were only allowed an hour of outside exercise, baby Tawny Frogmouths in the Northcote golf course area became a highlight of people's day.

More sunsets in autumn

Masks were not mandatory at first, but became so later. This is me trying out my first mask. I asked my grandkids (on social media) what superhero I could be, and one said 'Zebra woman'.

In May, the first lockdown was loosened. I was able to go for a walk along Merri Creek with my daughter and grandsons whom I hadn't seen 'in real life' for a while. We saw a kookaburra.

In June, we were briefly able to go outside Melbourne and visit regional areas in Victoria. I went to Ballarat for a short holiday with a close friend who lives in that area, to celebrate my birthday. This is from our walk around the lake.

Birthday flowers from dear friends who gave me a 'high tea'. I was very lucky that my birthday fell in that brief period before the lockdown started again

The Tawny Frogmouths in Northcote.

One of my lockdown projects was to fix my courtyard on the southern side of my place. The white lattice is to make it brighter in winter and reflect light through my window. These orchids bloomed prolifically in winter and gave me a moment of happiness each morning.

Trying out my hand at good photography for once! These are all harvested from the community garden or donated by gardeners from their backyards. It took me a long time to do this, but I think it captures some of the beauty.

Note sure if this is Merri Creek or Darebin Creek, but if it's Darebin Creek it must have taken during the brief period in mid 2020 when we were allowed to go further than 5 kilometres from our homes. I normally walk with a friend once a week, and we often go along the creeks or the Yarra River, but we had to suspend our walks for most of 2020.

This is in late winter in the White calendar, or the beginning of the Petyan season, the season of flowers, in the Kulin calendar. The Hardenbergia (I don't know its Indigenous name) is one of the earliest flowers to appear. July to August was the hardest time in Melbourne, cold, short days, in lockdown but with Covid19 infections still rising. Even after infections started to go down, the sad toll of deaths in aged care continued for some time. The flowers were a reminder that the natural world is still beautiful.

Coburg Velodrome was one of the places where kids could enjoy themselves safely, even when playground were closed. Throughout the lockdown, there were always people exercising in the parks, walking, playing games, rollerskating, riding bikes, skateboards, scooters and all sorts. They did my heart good.

My oldest grandson emailed me a really good picture of a bird that he had drawn and challenged me to draw one. I took this photo of a magpie, but it was a while before I got around to drawing it.

A hop bush blooming along the Moonee Ponds Creek path.