What Women Want. Well, what some family-oriented women and their families want. Well,...

So. The What Women Want (Australia) Party.

I was disturbed when I first read that an (apparently single issue) party was forming, assumedly in time for the Federal election at the end of the year and representing the women of Australia in all their diversity. Since then, I've decided that in fact, the party is probably the best way to achieve the ends of its founders, though they've gone about it in a rather clumsy and divisive manner that is unlikely to help them. (Although if they avoided this to a great extent they would become apologist and achieve very little anyway. Win some, lose some.)

My first impression was that the party over-represented itself to no end. 'What Women Want (Australia)' infers that the party represents the political desires of all women - that's approximately 50.6% of the population (2006 Census - this number is extrapolated from the percentage of females of all ages in Australia on census night). Neither major party achieves this sort of support. The latest Galaxy poll puts Labor at 46% and the Coalition at 41% (from the Galaxy report at Poll Bludger), both of which fall well short. They also automatically rule out the other 49.4% of the population, a not inconsiderable number of whom, especially those with families and broadly socialist views, could potentially find representation in this party in a way that no other party offers. Admittedly, the confusingly named Conservative Christian party has already put paid to the ability of any party to call themselves a family party, which makes the question of names a tricky one.

More important to the question of representation than the name is the fact that many, if not most, of the female-specific policies are aimed at women who have children - generally children under five years of age - or those who intend to have children. This does not take into account the needs and wants of women who do not want or plan to have children, who are too old to have children or who gave birth to children in years long past. Not all women want children or want to encourage others to have children, be it for reasons of population control or because small people are a nuisance.

The other problem I had was that WWW appeared to be a single-issue party. A single issue minor party that holds the balance of power is a very dangerous thing. A party, any party, should be expected to be able to present a raft of viable policy platforms in a whole range of areas by the time that they register as a party, otherwise they lose all credibility and claim to political authority, at least in my eyes. Instead, they would better serve the country as a lobby group, putting forward the needs of the people they represent to all the groups that stood to make changes based on the information they received.

As I said earlier, despite the problems I have with this party, after researching it more, I've come to support it for a number of reasons.

Firstly, this is the best way for this interest group to have their needs acted upon. The Women's Electoral Lobby was established in 1972, and has spoken on many women's issues, but has by and large been drowned out by other, more interesting, groups and news makers. A political party that can have a direct effect on electoral outcomes is a far more effective form of representation, and appears far more likely to produce results.

In addition, the party does, in a way, represent far more people than just the mothers of Australia. It also bears great relevance to nearly all future citizens of Australia, male or female. Issues like childcare, preschool education and financial support for one's family as they grow up has an enormous effect on the well-being of the child.

To my mind, most of their policies appear reasonable and considered, covering a far wider range of ideas than I expected from the media reports. They are 'position statements' rather than specific policies, but they suggest well-considered approaches to most issues, although this approach is far more shallow as the party moves away from matters of motherhood.

Health - This section contained policies on maternity care (provision of more midwives) and a woman's right to chose in respect to abortion, as one might expect. However, there is also specific reference to mental health and indigenous health priorities, which were less predictable. The position platforms refer to post-natal depression and infant mortality respectively, but they also cover issues with no specific link to 'women's issues'.

Work and Family - This is definitely the most specifically feminist section. It puts forward a specific, considered policy proposal for maternity leave, (which I found surprisingly understated - 6 months paid at the minimum award wage or higher for the mother, another 6 months unpaid for either parent) a plea for better child-care services (preferably with the support of federal funding or tax incentives) and the need for more recognition and support for carers (who are mostly women). However, it also covers ideas such as a 'living wage' for all members of society, the need for financial security for disability pensioners and the rights of homosexual couples (under the heading of 'gender equity'. Not entirely sure how that's applicable). More considered and general than the 'feminazi' approach I was expecting. No references to enforced gender equality in the workplace or the like.

Education - Brief, but largely practical within the socialist bounds that appear to be the starting point of the party. Covers the provision of government funded preschool places for all and the social benefits of such, the need for better funding for private education without disadvantaging public schools, vocational training (to the extent of 'it is needed'. No changes suggested or shortfalls highlighted here) and a fairer tertiary education system with reference to universities.

Environment - I am not impressed. A single, reasonable water policy is proposed amongst a short lecture to the current parliament about how this should be above partisan politics. The position on climate change, however, is atrocious. The call to research alternative energy sources and educate citizens about how to reduce their footprint (apart from being somewhat cryptic if you don't know much about the area) is relatively reasonable, if exceedingly shallow. Their call for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is behind the times and suggests that this issue - one of paramount importance both environmentally and politically - has barely been considered, and is in no way a priority. The power position simply reheats the call for more investigation into clean, green energy.

Peace - This section appears to be less about peace overall than a catch all category. If one is prepared to think flexibly, the call for an end to war in Iraq, Indigenous self-determination, humane treatment of refugees and fair trade may all be considered matters of peace. However, welfare and public services, young people and economic policy should not really be in this category. While I am impressed that all these topics are proclaimed as matters of importance to the party, I think many are under considered. The position on youth is a completely rhetorical statement of 'young people are important', the welfare category simply re-states the need for security for all Australian citizens, and the positions on the Iraq war, fair trade and refugees are empty rhetoric, staking claim to a position with no suggestions on policy direction to achieve the stated ends. Worst of all the position statements, however, is the economic policy. A meagre eight lines describe the entire economic ideas of the party - that the widening income gap and increased levels of poverty are a shame, and that a strong public sector are essential. This is grossly neglected.

Although I may have done a good job of suggesting the opposite, I believe that the WWW party is a positive creation, although I think its members need to put far more work into the party's policies before it becomes a politically viable minor party alternative, rather than a single-issue vote siphon. If its creators are wise, the policy development process will be thorough, deep and as swift as possible.