Month: January 2009

The State Government’s proposed application of anti-discrimination legislation to men-only clubs is an odd priority for a government during a financial crisis. States across Australia are staring down the barrel of deficits, high unemployment and the implosion of our domestic manufacturing industry. But Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls has decided to intervene in a private dispute between what he describes as “progressive thinkers” and “crusty old fogeys and young fuddy-duddies” at the exclusive Athenaeum Club over whether to allow female members.

Seriously, does our Attorney-General have no better way to spend his time? After all, if you’re wealthy enough to afford the high membership fees demanded by Melbourne’s exclusive clubs, you’re hardly a victim of debilitating discrimination.

There are many organisations in Australia with membership rules that could be considered discriminatory. There are women-only gyms. There are gay-only nightclubs. There are same-sex schools. There are churches that will only hire you as a priest if you believe in God. And there are places that insist you take off your shoes before you enter, even if you really don’t want to.

Of course, there are pockets in Australian society where people do encounter discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion. But exclusive clubs are hardly a social problem that demands immediate action from a crack team of legislators. These clubs are a lot more harmless than the government seems to believe. As The Age reported on Friday, less than one-fifth of the Melbourne Club’s membership is also listed in Who’s Who Australia – it’s hardly a centre of power, secret rituals and the manipulation of public opinion.

Put a bunch of men in a room with alcohol and snacks for long enough and it’s fairly predictable what will happen. The conversation will eventually degenerate from business and high politics to cricket, the best songs on Guitar Hero World Tour and the most effective way humanity could defeat a surprise invasion of Velociraptors. Who would win in a fight: Conan-era Schwarzenegger or Bruce Lee? Perhaps the conversation will eventually turn to some gentlemanly wagers – could it be possible for one man to traverse the world in 80 days? And given the demographics of Melbourne’s most exclusive clubs, a typical evening might end with the singing of some vaguely remembered songs from boarding school.

Gentlemen’s clubs date back to 17th-century England. Far from being stodgy, stiff and proper, these original clubs were little more than a place to get drunk away from the wife. Early caricatures of English gentlemen’s clubs consistently show club members red-faced and sozzled, grasping at bottles of wine. Some clubs even provided boarding rooms for the gentlemen to sleep it off.

In the present day, the most exclusive all-male club in the world, the Bohemian Grove club, is really just an excuse for powerful Americans to participate in stupid rituals that have much more camp value than deep meaning.

So it’s no wonder that the gender exclusivity of men’s clubs inspired powerful and wealthy women to set up their own exclusive clubs – in Melbourne, we have the Lyceum and The Alexandra – where the conversations are, no doubt, on average much more sensible. And on the other end of the spectrum, Melbourne’s least exclusive club, the RACV Club, is now best known for its buffet-style dining: the Sizzler of Melbourne’s club set.

Still, at least the RACV Club is doing well. The truth is that some of the longest-standing men’s clubs are in terminal decline, with or without female membership restrictions. There really aren’t that many of Rob Hulls’ “young fuddy-duddies” quixotically tilting against the demographic windmills. Instead, many clubs are struggling to demonstrate to apprentice power-brokers and the next generation of fatcats why joining would be worthwhile. Like a lot of voluntary organisations, they are failing to encourage the generational change needed to survive.

After all, in 2009, it’s far more exciting to get a reservation at Vue de Monde than be served a plate of mutton, mashed potatoes and steamed beans at a gentlemen’s club.

The government’s proposed changes to the legislation governing the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission don’t just end at forcing private clubs to change their long-standing membership requirements. They also include the power to enter, search and seize documents. So we can look forward to burly anti-discrimination commissioners kicking down the door of the Melbourne Club and ordering scared retirees to slowly place their cognac and copies of The Spectator back on the antique mahogany side-tables.

The commission may also be empowered to act wherever they suspect discrimination is occurring, regardless of whether there have been any complaints.

In a society that values individual liberty, free association is a basic human right. And the right of free association also implies the right to exclude those with whom you do not wish to associate. So if you don’t like the exclusive membership policies of Melbourne’s clubs, start your own.

When politicians suddenly quit halfway through their term, they’ve usually done something naughty, or stupid, or are so awful at their job that they’ve worked out the electorate can’t stand them any longer.

But if the only reason state Labor MP Evan Thornley has resigned his seat is so he can re-enter the private sector, then, well, that’s fantastic. In 2009, we’re going to want every business person on the ground working overtime to create jobs. The last thing we need is talented entrepreneurs spending their lives stuck in the world of petty rivalries and disproportionate egos that is Australian politics.

Anyway, we have a more than sufficient number of politicians trying to engineer political solutions to what is an economic crisis. Thornley founded a company that, at its height, was worth just shy of $1billion. His commercial acumen and skills could be far more useful building the economy than regulating it.

The position that Premier Brumby was reportedly going to offer Thornley – minister for industry, trade and industrial relations – is one that could easily have a few responsibilities shaved off it. A general consensus among economists is that the best trade policy is to have no trade policy at all. Industry policy has a long and venerable history of comprehensive failure. And Victoria has ceded the vast majority of its industrial relations responsibility to the Commonwealth.

It must be strange for someone who has spent his life adding value to the economy to be offered one of the ministries most dedicated to taking value out of it.

It is a widespread delusion that the best way for a person to serve others is to enter politics; that politics is a noble profession of public service. But there’s just something far nobler about working in private industry or in the not-for-profit sector – individuals who spend their whole careers trying to figure out just what sort of products or services consumers want, or trying to understand social problems and how to resolve them. If the idea of service to others has any validity, surely social and commercial entrepreneurs are worthier than the politicians who seek, above all else, the highest level of political power.

And while many people dismiss success in business as little more than the greedy pursuit of fortune, how does that compare to politics? The business of the politician is, essentially, the pursuit of power over others. The top politicians may be paid a lot less than the top CEOs but, while a CEO can at most control their corporation, many politicians seem to believe they can move everybody’s private resources around like chess pieces.

Far from being noble, politics is a profession that rewards expediency and even deception. Political decisions are guided mostly by polling data and a desire to hurt the other team. Legislation is the result of manic horse-trading that seeks not to find the best way to do something, but to mollify as many interest groups as possible and please the bizarre preferences of the independents that often hold the balance of power.

So it is no surprise that so many laws and government programs are ill-defined, have no clear goal, and provide no method of assessing whether they are actually working. But politicians find it’s a lot easier to start a government program than to close an old one. Bureaucracies, commissions, departments, boards, committees and taskforces pile up upon each other, each insisting on a slice of the annual budget. They say that laws are like sausages: it’s better not to see them being made. But do we really have to be forced to eat so many?

Many in the private sector are now being sadly reminded that jobs that are underutilised or unnecessary have a habit of being eliminated. This does not occur in Parliament. Inefficient or just plain disinterested backbenchers need little more than a lock on their preselection and a safe seat to feel relaxed and comfortable. Even if they underperform by every possible measure, they can remain employed for decades.

As the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter once wrote: “Politicians are like bad horsemen who are so preoccupied with keeping in the saddle that they can’t bother about where they go.” The private sector is much less forgiving of people who spend most of their working day preparing for the next round of job interviews.

Indeed, there’s a lot to be said for the private sector. No hairdresser or bank manager can cut your hair or take your money unless you specifically ask them to do so. Politicians have no such limit – laws that impact on everybody are enacted with only the barest of consent from what constitutes a democratic majority.

While Thornley’s political colleagues might be furious at his resignation, hopefully he is able to show them that only the private sector can create the jobs that Australia will need next year.