Defeated by himself

August 30, 2005

John Brogden has done the right thing. He had no choice. Having tried to tough out allegations of predatory and insulting behaviour, it took just one full broadside of morning headlines for him to see he had been fatally damaged, and by his own hand. The Leader of the NSW Opposition, who had hoped his boyish image would sell the Liberals' message of youth and renewal, had exhibited instead a boy's failing - lack of maturity.

At his resignation press conference, Mr Brogden put his finger on the political reason why he had to go: he would have become the issue at the next election. Instead of attacking the Government about trains, hospitals and schools, the Liberals would have been defending Mr Brogden's indefensible gaffes and gropings. Although he tried to turn yesterday morning's event into an attack on the Government, his conduct has for the moment negated whatever momentum the Opposition had managed to gain. The public may also be forgiven for wondering: if this young man was the best the party could offer as leader, what must the rest be like? Mr Brogden, who is from the Liberal Party's left wing, has accused opponents inside the party of undermining him. It is true that as a republican and a moderate, his view of the world is out of favour with the party's conservative and monarchist elements who, after John Howard's success in building enduring support, see their star in the ascendant. But Mr Brogden, while a capable enough leader, has not set the electorate alight. And it was his behaviour, not that of his Liberal Party rivals, which brought his leadership undone.

The issue goes deeper than politics. Mr Brogden's casual, half-inebriated insult to Helena Carr and his predatory actions towards women journalists were wrong and deeply objectionable in themselves. Standards have changed for politicians' private behaviour. Journalists and others might once have overlooked dubious goings-on as long as they occurred behind closed doors. It has been almost a condition of entry to power's inner sanctum that observers should report selectively what they see. But the public has grown impatient with this hypocrisy. Sportsmen and sportswomen are judged by their behaviour off the field or on it; so are others in the publicity spotlight. Why not politicians - particularly when embarrassing actions such as Mr Brogden's go to his suitability for office? The Australian Hotels Association function was in any case not a particularly private affair. His misbehaviour was noted by many who attended. Mr Brogden has acknowledged his mistakes and apologised, as he should, but it nonetheless reflects poorly on him that only now - more than three weeks after the event - has he felt the need to apologise to the women he harassed.

The member for Pittwater now returns to the back bench while others pick up the pieces behind him. Mr Brogden has not ruled out a return to the front bench in due course. He will be older and, electors should hope, a great deal wiser when he does so.

Fighting the wrong battle

In picking a fight there are two essential considerations. First - is it a battle that can be won? Equally important, though, is a second question: would victory resolve the argument once and for all, or escalate tensions and risk turning a small problem into a large one? In the case of Muslim headscarves at state schools, those who argue that a ban would foster integration fail both tests. The Department of Education's school uniform policy clearly states students may not be discriminated against on ethnic or religious grounds, that students cannot be excluded for failing to wear the prescribed uniform, and that parents have a right to "conscientiously object" to uniforms. Muslim girls who wear headscarves fall within these rights. As to healing the rift between Australia's Islamic communities and the rest, a ban would almost certainly provoke a more strident assertion of Muslim identity and exacerbate feelings of victimisation.

Headscarves are iconic symbols of adherence to Islam, as the Liberal backbencher Bronwyn Bishop argues. But they are not, as Mrs Bishop also claims, "items of defiance", representing a religion which deserves to be singled out. Nor are they symbols of religious extremism. In fact, they are symbols of nothing more than a basic right - a freedom of choice. Within Islam itself, many Muslim women and girls exercise choice. In many countries, including some with Muslim governments, some women choose not to wear the headscarf. Those who do may be motivated by religious devotion, a quest for identity or even rebellion against a perceived hostility towards Muslims within their country. But that is not what matters. State schools are legally obliged to open their doors to all regardless of race, colour or creed. There are no exceptions - for headscarves, crucifixes, turbans, yarmulkes or outlandish hairstyles.

School uniforms seek to impose a conformity on students which some will always resist, for very many reasons. Equally there will always be those who throw up their hands at the nonconformists, whether they wear their too hair long, their skirts too short - or don headscarves. Last year, France forced its many Muslim girls to bare their heads at school. The expulsion since of scores of students who refused has only further alienated Muslims. And it is alienation - not scarves - that is the seed of extremism. Scarves are a token issue. Improving relations between Australian Muslims and the wider community is not. The Prime Minister, John Howard, was right to reject Mrs Bishop's view. The real issue is the promotion of inclusion and tolerance. That is a far more difficult task than isolating those who look different.