Apart from being only the second hung Parliament since Federation, the new national assembly is notable for another reason.  Ken Wyatt, the Liberal Member for Hasluck, is the first indigenous member of the House of Representatives.

Sweet relief from the Liberal Blue tie. The Member for Hasluck Ken Wyatt. Picture: Ray Strange

It comes almost 40 years after Neville Bonner, also a Liberal, was sworn in as the nation’s first indigenous senator. Like Bonner, Wyatt has come from a family of battlers, and has made his way in life through hard work and persistence.

The Coalition’s promotion of people from diverse backgrounds has extended beyond indigenous Australians. Bill O’Chee ,a National Party Senator for Queensland, was the first MP with an Asian/Chinese parent. His father was Chinese, and his mother was Irish-Australian. Thomas Bakhap (Liberal, Senator for Tasmania 1913-23), although Caucasian, was the adopted son of a Chinese immigrant Bak Hap (his mother was Irish), and the Senator identified strongly with the Chinese community.

More recently, Tsebin Tchen became the first Asian migrant to win a seat in Parliament. The son of a Taiwanese diplomat, Tchen, who was born in Chungking, represented Victoria in the Senate.

There were four Jewish MPs in the first Parliament on the non-Labor side: the Victorians, Isaac Isaacs and Pharez Phillips representing the Protectionist Party, and the Free Traders, Elias Solomon from WA and Vaiben Solomon from South Australia. Isaacs later became a High Court judge and Australia’s first native-born Governor-General.  Today there are also four Jewish MPs in the national Parliament – three on the Labor side and one on the Coalition. There is also a Muslim MP for the first time, representing Labor.

Enid Lyons was the first woman elected to the House in 1943 as a Member of the United Australia Party, the same year that Dorothy Tangney was elected to the Senate representing the ALP. Lyons, who subsequently represented the Liberal Party, also became the first woman to serve in the Ministry.

The election of Neville Bonner and Ken Wyatt reflects the fact that the Liberal Party has been to the forefront historically in indigenous affairs. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were given the franchise in 1964; a non-discriminatory constitutional reform was achieved in 1967; and land reform for the Northern Territory was legislated in 1976. In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Coalition supported ATSIC in the early nineties; and when Mark Latham broke with that, it embarked on a new era of indigenous affairs that is about accountability and economic development, which the Labor Party has largely supported.

It also reflects the fact that the Coalition traditionally has selected candidates that better reflect the wider community.

For all its rhetoric about social inclusion, Labor draws on a much narrower base for its elected representatives.

Of the 33 new Labor members in 2007, only seven had not been a union official or officebearer, a Labor State member or councillor or an advisor to a Labor MP. In some cases, the new members had worked in more than one such occupation.

Contrast this to the then new coalition members. Of the eight people, only one had been a fulltime Party official. Another had been an advisor to members of Parliament.

In other words, 79 per cent of Labor’s new members were professional union/party workers. On the other side, only 25 per cent had been professional party workers.

The pattern is repeated this year. Four of the nine new ALP members were union officials or political staffers. Two others were university staff members and two were lawyers.

This influx of union and party apparatchiks adds to the already narrow occupational backgrounds of existing Labor members. Where are the farmers, the businesspeople, and the various professionals, let alone the tradesmen and women that once constituted the soul of the Labor Party?

Now in alliance with the inner-city, ultra-left Greens, the Labor Party has moved further from its traditional heartland. As John Black summarised the recent election trends, the skilled blue collar tradesmen are less a part of the ALP profile than ever before. Even the academics that were part of the ALP voter profile in the 70s are now deserting Labor for the Greens.

37 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Quentin Quipper says:

      06:26am | 27/10/10

      The day after Howard calls the Gillard government ..a cosmopolitan collection…along comes this mish mash explanation of the political landscape. Three jews,one muslim,but no catholics,atheists,agnostics or buddhists .One indigenous member and the coalition is to the forefront of indigenous affairs,what happened under Menzies ...stolen generations and a referendum to allow aboriginal voting rights at the very end of his political tenure. The left is full of union reps, the right is full of lawyers who are unionized in a guilded admission to the bar.It all comes down to meaningless rant and tells us nothing.

    • Ted N says:

      09:39am | 27/10/10

      Not exactly nothing. Kevin’s rant tells us volumes in elephant he dances around the room with. There are less union members today and more subbies and small business people around, so how come there isn’t the diversity in Parliament to represent pro-competition and small business? As Frank Zumbo continually writes about ie.: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/our-toothless-consumer-watchdog/

      Kevin bags the “ultra-left” yet his track record in small business advocacy looks more like some 1970s socialist, anti-competition anti-business ideology. Action or lack thereof speaks louder than words.

      I was a member of the excellent Electrical Trades Union 10 years ago and I can tell you they stood up for our interests many times more than self interested puppets like Kevin!

      Diversity and a healthy economy may begin with you,  doing some work instead of being a lazy hypocrite Kevin?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:15am | 27/10/10

      Quentin , you seem to miss the point of what Kevin Andrews has stated.
      The Liberal party is wide in it’s diversity , it attracts people from all walks of life , particularly those who are prepared to risk their capital in private or public ventures and devote their time to bettering themselves through their own efforts.

      Living in a past (stolen generations)  brought about on decisions taken
      by governments dealing with indigenous problems of that era , is hardly relevant to what Kevin Andrews is on about.
      Ken Wyatt’s representation of Hasluck as a Liberal M.P. , is truly indicative of the diversity in the make-up of Liberalism , just as was Queensland Senator Neville Bonner’s representation .
      Andrews has made the point clearly that the Liberal party has a much wider and diverse membership and representation compared to Labor which is confined to a narrow base representing an interrelated political mix .
      The ideals and philosophies and aims of the Liberal party appeal to a far broader spectrum of Australians than any other political party.

    • Jeremy says:

      06:28am | 27/10/10

      The Parliament should be as diverse as society.

      For example, there should be more than two parties represented in the House of Representatives.

      The Greens shouldn’t have to get 14% of the vote to get a single seat in a chamber of 150.

      Will Kevin Andrews support multi-member electorates in the lower house?

      (No, because this article was a disingenuous Labor-bashing attempt and he doesn’t really believe in a diversity of views being represented in Parliament.)

    • TimB says:

      06:49am | 27/10/10

      That’s what the Senate is for. The lower house seats are supposed to represent the individual electorates, not the political cross section of the entire nation.

    • Jeremy says:

      04:25pm | 27/10/10

      Who says that’s what the Senate is for?

      As per original design, the Senate is to represent the States; the House of Representatives to represent the people.

      There’s no reason why the lower house shouldn’t be proportionally represented per population rather than per state as in the Senate.

      If we were interested in representing the diversity of society, that is.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      06:31am | 27/10/10

      Two new coalition party MPs with Wyatt in their name, not what I call diverse

    • Ben C says:

      10:59am | 27/10/10

      Their age difference is trying to make up for that

    • Chester says:

      01:02pm | 27/10/10

      There does need to be more variety of names in Parliament,  i say ban duplications.

    • Adam says:

      06:45am | 27/10/10

      “The election of Neville Bonner and Ken Wyatt reflects the fact that the Liberal Party has been to the forefront historically in indigenous affairs”
      and still the Liberals were unable or unwilling to say the hardest word and when forced into it by the unlamented K Rudd all they were capable of was a meally mouthed attempt to paint white history into their speech. Give it up Kevin, the electorate has a longer memory than you may like to believe

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      12:03pm | 27/10/10

      Adam , i live in an area where there are mixed indigenous Australians of mainland and Torres Strait extraction . Many of them were not happy about being apologised to by current generations of Australians for decisions that were taken by Governments so long ago. Those decisions made in that era were to deal with those problems that were paramount at that time.
      All Australians taking the heat (today) for one section of the Australian community which did not understand or appreciate those decisions in the past is bloody ridiculous. I’m not sorry for actions of past governments back in pioneering days and i’m sure i am not alone in my thinking.
      It’s not the electorate with the long memory Adam , it is you and others of like mind who refuse to put aside past differrences who keep the hatred and bitterness alive.  Move on. !

    • BK says:

      06:53am | 27/10/10

      These former union officials have typically done other jobs before entering politics. The union movement is their stepping stone into politics. All of the research that the ALP’s asssociation with the unions is seen as a positive.

      Its the ALP politicians who haven’t been union officials that I am more worried about. These trendies kept the party out of power for far too long. They can go and join the greens.

    • Ted N says:

      07:19am | 27/10/10

      Sounds like more Anglo male baby boomers to me… And people like Kevin still not listening to voters…

      I can choose from 15 types of chocolate bars at the supermarket but how come I only get to choose from one and half political parties? (The “two” party system is overstating the choices, given Labor is the defacto left wing of the Liberal party and conservative politics)

    • Cate P says:

      11:14am | 27/10/10

      so start up your own party, or stand as an independent.  Anyone can.

    • Snake Plisskin says:

      07:37am | 27/10/10

      No, parliament should be made up of people who have proven they have the skills and knowledge to run a global organisation in a fashion that will benefit a nation.

      Australia is one of the world’s biggest economies and we need people with a sound knowledge of business and economics to run it.

      But it should also be run so as to benefit it’s people. Give them top quality education and health care. Ensure that their infrastructure is the world’s best (roads, trains, ports etc).

      We shouldn’t be focusing on people’s ethnicity but their ability.

      As far as I can see only a few parliamentarians have this ability. I won’t name them but they feature on either side.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:36am | 27/10/10

      Well said. This is afterall all that matters isn’t it?

      Nah, we just have to make sure we have a woman in there to keep the ladies happy, a young man in there to keep the youth happy and an aborigine in there to keep the indigenous aussies happy. Sounds a little bit patronising to me. Did Ken Wyatt get appointed as the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? No. So essentially he is as powerless as my local member. Good luck to him.

      Just like when I got to the doctor at short notice. I go to see a doctor. I couldn’t care that every second one I see is male and of Indian decent. Are Indian people over represented in the medical profession - in my area yes - do I care? No - they do a fine job and are fine Australians.

      Lets all just get on with the job at hand.

    • Bob H says:

      07:47am | 27/10/10

      What is the kudos of a diverse background if it produces yet another conforming party automaton, with an eye on the perks and pension.  There seems to be a belief that having a diverse background is somehow noble, what a crock.  It is an individual’s qualities that are important, conviction and guts, which has nothing to do with having exotic or privileged parentage.

    • Terry Barnes says:

      07:53am | 27/10/10

      Kevin, as a former Coalition adviser myself I’m disappointed at your implied swipe at staffers as new MPs. Advisers who have wider life experience as well working in politics are ideal candidates for office, as they both know what they’re getting into, understand the machinery of government and have a depth of perspective.  It’s those who do nothing else but uni, politics and parliament (and there are examples of those on both sides of the current House, including in senior frontbench positions) who are the ones to worry about.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      10:23am | 27/10/10

      I rate passion and understanding of their local electorate a lot higher than being an ex staffer ..I am prepared to forgive them for having some hiccups dealing with the machinery of government..but I will not forgive them for lacking passion and not trying things because they are an ex staffer and think they know it all.

    • Terry Barnes says:

      12:05pm | 27/10/10

      Peter, well said.  Ex-staffers are in some ways better prepared to be MPs (and most don’t pretend to know it all, but come with a love of Parliament as an institution), but without passion and a willingess to put country and electorate before self that’s all nothing.  Connecting your comment’s with Kevin’s, be assured that many ex-staffers who make the leap (new Liberal MPs Josh Frydenberg, Alan Tudge and Dan Tehan from Victoria are three) have passion and commitment in spades.

    • Bear says:

      07:54am | 27/10/10

      Hmmm, which other groups are not included by this right wing fundamentalist? Strangely enough, Mr Andrews has nothing to say about the Australian Parliament and its (under)representation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex Australians. Not surprising from someone who is willing to let their personal faith dictate their approach to law (anti-euthanasia campaign, anyone?)

    • Steve says:

      09:07am | 27/10/10

      And short people, let’s not forget the short people. 

      Bloody Tallism!

    • Anthony says:

      08:50am | 27/10/10

      The parliament is diverse you have one side that is about economical stability and keeping costs down,and another side that is about hugging trees and taxing people so much that alot of there followers are that simple that they are even asking for more taxes.

    • ChrisW says:

      09:12am | 27/10/10

      Terry Barnes is absolutely right ... and I’m neither a pollie nor a staffer.  The notion that uni+politics+parliament equips anyone to make informed decisions on complex matters in the area of business, finance and technology is completely laughable. 
      Would YOU wish to be operated on by a lawyer; would you expect a doctor to repair your car?
      Recently just think about the financial quality of decisions made relating to roof insulation, school halls and the NBN.  The latter is even more complex with a substantial technical element. And these are simply convenient recent issues to quote.  The other side of politics is little better.

    • Shaun Newman says:

      09:33am | 27/10/10

      Yes I agree parliament should have far more representatives from “all” walks of life, some of our best Prime Ministers have been train drivers.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:27am | 27/10/10

      I’d hope that the people we elect identify themselves as Australian, more than any type of background, parentage, religion and or heritage Kevin.

      Anything after that - who cares?

    • Snake Plisskin says:

      12:39pm | 27/10/10

      What does it mean to identify yourself as an Australian?

      There is no one Australian identity.

      It would seem that citizenship of this country is all that counts.

    • ImaWestie says:

      01:44pm | 27/10/10

      Snake, it means you don’t put Serbia, or Turkey, or England first. You put Australia first.

      In sport.
      In economics.
      In war.
      In climate change.
      In moral, ethical and spiritual debate.

      I didn’t think it was hard, and I’m just a feral bogan westie.

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      04:37pm | 27/10/10

      What a load of complete and utter tosh. So a committed Christian who believes that Christ is literally the Son of God should place “Australianess” first over, say, the Bible when considering matters of spirituality? What does that even mean?

      A die hard League fan who cheers for the Kiwis to upset Australia because they like to see the underdog win from time to time is unfit for public office?

      How can you put Australia “first” in a moral debate? Does that mean you should apply one set of morals for Australia and Australians and another for other countries and other people?

      How can you put Australia “first” on an issue like climate change, where by definition the environmental effects are global? “Lets reduce Carbon output only from the factories that are gointg to causing drought in the Murray Darling, and not the ones that will cause flooding in Bangladesh?” Ooooookkkk then…..

      This kind of idiotic rhetroic gives patriotism - loving Australia, genuinely wanting to advance its legitimate interests, and trying to make sure it stays one of the best places in the entire world to live - a thoroughly bad name.

    • Rebecca says:

      10:35pm | 28/10/10

      @Jordan RastricK:
      Yes, a committed christian wishing to be (or elected) SHOULD place what is good for Australia (and Australians) above the bible. 
      If you want to use the bible to give you ethics (even though I have several doubts over portions of it) - do so.  In matters of PERSONAL spirituality, you can do what you like - preferably privately.  However, I do believe that if a religious person gets elected to parliament, then they have to be willing to consider, and indeed go against some things the bible may teach - because they were elected to represent an ENTIRE electorate, or ENTIRE state - not just the religious members contained within.  If this (theoretical) minister could not do this - don’t stand for public office.
      It is NOT an idiotic rant giving patriotism a bad name - its expecting our elected officials to act in the best interest of ALL of our communities - not just those they agree with.

    • Rebecca says:

      10:58pm | 28/10/10

      @Jordan: Oh - and I neglected to cover your other points - Sorry.
      I could be wrong, but I would think that ImaWestie is getting at the point of identifying as Australian first - and possibly only.  I don’t want to hear ‘Chinese Australian’ or ‘Irish Australian’ - I want to hear ‘Australian’.  If they really find it absolutely necessary to justify their background - then ‘I’m Australian, migrated from… / parents from…’ - but if they’re Australian, I don’t CARE where they came from - because I expect that someone who comes here to live, becomes a citizen, and especially one who runs for public office, is AUSTRALIAN.  Certainly - bring the best of your culture to share, and leave the rest behind (or why bother migrating? Isn’t that the point - Australia could offer something that was lacking elsewhere?)
      Sport - meh.  A little overrated, don’t think your example is really ‘barracking for the Kiwis’ - its ‘backing the underdog’ (though I was of the understanding that its fairly well matched most of the time?)
      Economics - simple - Australias finance needs, debt, improvements to society / standards of living - should be applied to our country, and our people first.  No problem with foreign aid - but when we have massive debts, and we have our own poverty / homelessness problems - these should be considered first.
      War - easy.  Is the war going to put Australia in more strife than it will solve? Will Australia be left underprotected? Is there tangible benefits to being part of a war (could it be dealt with another way)? Are we going to be allowed to do what is REALLY necessary to win, or just to stalemate?
      Climate Change - I think (though my own biases could come through here) - we do what can be done, but we don’t do what no-one else is willing to participate in - and we don’t attempt to impoverish Australians, or place them at a higher risk for no real gain.
      Moral, Ethical & spiritual - I think this (in part) was covered in my other post - but I will summarise - we don’t hold a different moral/ethical set for Australians and another for the rest of the world (since society developed these when humans first came together in groups, well before ‘Australia’) - but we do what is RIGHT for Australians, THEN we consider the needs of everyone else.  Hopefully, most of the time they will be in close proximity anyway; but where there is a conflict, we look at compromise, as long as Australias needs are put first by OUR representatives.  This is where the spiritual side hits the moral/ethical side - if you’re a representative who is religious (regardless of faith) - you DO NOT place members of society who don’t conform to your ‘standards’ at a distinct disadvantage because of your PERSONAL beliefs.  You do what is right for Australia as a WHOLE, not just the portion you ‘think’ you represent.

    • Bob says:

      10:37am | 27/10/10

      Clearly Kevin looks back on a long and proud history for the party of which he is a member; but claiming that a Senator elected in 1913 represented a party formed in 1944 is a bit rich. Senator Bakhap was certainly anti-Labor but for most of his term he sat as a Nationalist.  Does that automatically make him part of the Truss-Joyce mob?

    • Louie Mac says:

      10:47am | 27/10/10

      Haven’t read all of the comments - sorry.  But isn’t it nice for a change to have an indigenous Australian talking softly and not ranting wildly like some do here in Tasmania.

    • Anjuli says:

      11:12am | 27/10/10

      Bill O’Chee in private life was not that good a moral citizen go look at the news files.
      Isn’t it better to vote for a person because of the talent and wisdom they can bring to parliament not for which race ,religion or group they come from.

    • ImaWestie says:

      01:39pm | 27/10/10

      If the Nationals don’t exist to represent farmers, why do they still exist?
      Yet you expect to find farmers representing the Labor party?

      The different parties are about different issues. We need more of it, we need more diversity between party policy, we don’t need two parties which we can barely tell apart.

      Representation in the houses is a different issue. If we have different issues and people from diverse backgrounds championing those issues in the party of their choice, then we will have a wide range of Australians representing us in Parliament and the Senate regardless of which party they feel represents their ideals.

      Labor is about trade unions and working australians. Liberals are about free market and australians who employ people. What’s so hard to understand?

    • Blind Freddy says:

      03:34pm | 27/10/10

      I remember in the late 1980s when the Liberal memeber for Franklin (in T
      Tasmania) Bruce Goodluck was being interviewed on local radio. When the journalist questioned whether the point being expressed by Bruce was ignorant and ill informed, Bruce said that Australia was a democracy and the ignorant and ill informed deserved to have their opinions expressed and heard just like everyone else- and that was what he was doing! WTF.

    • Gregg says:

      04:29pm | 27/10/10

      Quite amazing, well perhaps not quite so and more that Kevin Andrews might just be the current love in opportunity as many took with John Howard but don’t be too disappointed guys even if you missed throwing some sneakers for John is out and about signing books.
      Even at the Canberra Press Club today and still displayed quite the leadership we do not have at the moment in the government.

      Kevin has just given an interesting historical insight and Labor buffoons can’t help to pick on something, be it mention of some non mainstream religions and drawing inferences that he is bashing union representation.
      Sometime the truth must hurt one hell of a lot!
      And of course Tony, Julie and others are always around to take a swipe at.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter