Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

It may be an outdated view but I think dress standards do matter, particularly in the Federal Parliament. Politicians should dress formally and I think that others who work in and attend the Parliament should do likewise, if only out of respect for the place they are visiting.

I have seen far too much ethical delinquency and incompetence concealed under smart suits to be at all impressed by formal dress. To me, the main signal that it conveys is that the wearer wants to be thought of as respectable, because they probably are not.

People in leather jackets and jeans are usually much more honest and competent.

I too think that standards matter and that the Speaker is right in relation to this issue.

Now, if they can just raise the standard of the conversation and the debate then we might be on a role and a road to improvement.

Margo, the bit I thought that was really ironic was his balderdash about “…the expectation on the part of electors…” as though the dress standard of the House was the only thing on the minds of electors and that the little bitty incidental stuff like the sale of Telstra, the erosion of our rights and democracy, the prospect of imprisonment without charge for those that dissent, etc, are mere piffling incidental matters of little importance to us!

Petulance and insanity.

Is it honestly not obvious to these men how small this makes them look?

Margo. Sorry darl, but I'm with the Speaker on this one. I can't stand slovenly dressing!

Of course now Howard will take his entourage for his morning power walk dressed in a suit and tie won't he? I can't stand one more picture of the embarrassing little twerp in his tracky daks, his Optus t-shirt, his akubra and so on walking the streets of the world like an imbecile.

Embarrassing.

It is even stupider. Margo were you in the new house when it was first opened? The walls were white, every thing is too long, too far to see anyone 750 metres away on a corridor.

It was agreed then that women would wear bright colours so they could be seen.

Out came the hot pink, the bright red, the orange, the purple and down went the black suits.

It was great, like a rainbow of women in the corridors.

What is Hawker whining about really? Another distraction by picking on anyone who disagrees with Howard and his toadies.

Noelene if bad language and sloppy dress bother you more than illegally invading countries and murdering innocent men, women and kids you should stand next to Sophie Panapolous for the next election - you two could form your own little fascist party.

No slovens or swearers allowed.

"maintain high standards in carrying out our responsibilities and in our conduct in this place".

Well, they've obviously failed with that, so might as well try to maintain some empty dress codes. Anyone ever heard the way these buggers carry on? They're either like kids squabbling in a playground, or they're holding forth in full pompous cry about some imagined crisis. Like dress standards.

I'm with you, Andy: I've seen too many weasels in suits to have much faith in dress standards as any guide to ability or character. And since I'm a geek working in the university, I've seen any amount of casually-dressed but nonetheless intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working, and scrupulously honest people over the years. To me, suits are people who care about money and appearances, while jeans-wearers care more about practicalities. That's a wiffly way of saying dress standards stress surface over substance.

Now if he'd suggested that pollies all maintain strict "honesty and non-obfuscating" standards, I'd be much more impressed.

Marilyn Shepherd. Why don't YOU stand for parliament? Then perhaps you could get it closed down in favour of rule by tin-pot African dictators through the UN?

If it wasn’t so serious it would be funny. But it’s consistent with the Howard Government’s approach to politics: keep up the thinnest veneer of ‘respectability’ with suits and weasel words while discarding all integrity and steadily eroding the basis of our liberal democracy. This Government no longer has any shame – power corrupts etc.

How long, folks, before Australians stop feeling relaxed and comfortable? How long until we realise we no longer live in a true democracy? God help us if and when a terrorist bomb goes off somewhere in Australia – watch the ‘emergency powers’ legislation pop up and the last semblance of free speech get snuffed out. The Howard Government is betraying Australia. I feel sick.

Marilyn. One of the expectations of contributors here is
"5. Robust debate is great, but don't indulge in personal attacks on other contributors."

Please explain why calling Noelene and Sophie 'fascist' is not a breach of these expectations.

Hawker: "This includes trousers, jacket, collar and tie for men and a similar standard of formality for women."

Did Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Panop then jump up and yell, "and no head scarves"?

Is this dress code bollocks all because Trish Draper donned an Adelaide Crows scarf in Parliament early this week? When she was asked to remove it, Draper draped it across her desk in full view of all, so her excuse that it was a cold morning in Canberra and it happened to be her only scarf didn't entirely weigh up - unless of course she felt her desk was cold.

I don't have a problem with any fair dinkum football club supporters flashing a bit of scarf around finals time, but I do have a problem with pollies pretending to support teams they don't really have allegiances to – as in John Howard making me want to vomit last year when he wore my beloved Western Bulldogs colours in announcing an upgrade to Whitten Oval (read shameless election announcement in the Western suburbs of Melbourne and Labor country).

I'm wondering if Hawker's issue with the footy scarf was more about Pollies and product placement? Imagine if they went the other way and were completely transparent ... all those donations from tobacco companies and big business – Hawker could wear a costume shaped as one giant cigarette ... the Labor members could wear hardhats with CFMEU branding (or do the Libs wear them now - given last year's election embrace of JH by forestry workers, some of whom no doubt are now marked to be unfairly dismissed) ... some big developers could hoist some scaffolding across the chamber bridging the divide between both the major parties, aww ... Barnaby could tattoo a big T for Telstra across his forehead ... Family First's rep could wear a Guy Sebastian Fro' ... it could all make for entertaining viewing.

But seriously is this just a storm in a football club teacup? My guess is Hawker, having a seat in Western Victoria (a description some people think should replace 'South Australia') just has the good sense to dislike Adelaide Crows supporters.

I'd much prefer pollies and parliamentary attendants just wear what they feel comfortable in (in Sophie Panop's case it seems to be floral suits designed for women decades older than her). And heck, it would be fun to see Andrew Bartlett re-embrace his gothic past!

But I'm also with Jolanda, and her point that it would be far better to "raise the standard of the conversation and the debate then we might be on a roll and a road to improvement" - too true J.

Margo: "Howard's handpicked Speaker of the House of Representatives."

The speaker is elected by secret ballot, but party discipline means it's always the PM's choice. Only the first Speaker was independent in the Westminister tradition.

Since 1908 the office of speaker has effectively been partisan. No party is prepared to have Westminister-style Speaker, despite what the Constitution says.

Those of us with long memories will recall that Gough refused to support his "hand-picked" Speaker when one of Whitlam's 'toadies' [to use a Shepherdism], Clyde Cameron, was 'named'. There's adherence to democratic principles for you.

I'm with Andy Christy on this one; based on personal experience of course.

Oh, I was so right. You are like Kurt Cobain. He was the little blonde-haired hick in your Webdiary magazine collage, that became an instant success with his anti-fashion, anti-entertainment, anti-establishment punk rock music. The media loved him because he was camera-friendly, looking like a weepy-eyed Jesus. He is still thrown up on the front cover of music magazines, even though he has been dead for about ten years, because he photographed so well.

The media dubbed the movement "grunge", because in Seattle/Portland it was very industrial and the little punk kids would go around wearing scungey clothes that they'd bought from second-hand stores, to say F.U. to the consumerist culture. It wasn't long before the corporate world got wind of this movement and someone named Perry Ellis created "Grungewear", which was like professionally designed second-hand crap.

Kurt once scribbled "Corporate Magazines still suck" on his t-shirt when he was interviewed for Rolling Stone. He subsequently shot himself, partly because he felt like a sell-out. Something incoherent about "the ethics of punk rock 101", leaving his wife and child behind him.

His widow Courtney Love, who still pops up endlessly in magazines like Woman's Day, with her trashy stories of drugs and sleaze, came out the day after his suicide to inform the world that Kurt was not a martyr but was in fact an asshole. She now sings songs critical of the corporate culture but also cautioning against idiot-martyrdom and encouraging young women not to waste their money, as well as to insist upon getting your just deserts out of them, if you ever find yourself with something they want. She's been stalling the release of some of Kurt's latest material, much to the dismay of fans, so that she can score as much money as possible.

There's one line I remember in particular "Every time that I sell myself to you, I feel a little bit cheaper than I need to.."

The lesson of the nineties, which you missed because you were busy voting for the Liberal party, is that there is no such thing as selling out and if you're talented, you should capitalise from it, because if you don't, somebody else will. As for dress standards - yes, indeed, substance does rule over perception, but perception also has its place. There is nothing wrong with dressing well or presenting yourself in as polished a way as possible. You should rebel against substance, not form, because rebelling against form will put you at an unecessary disadvantage.

Australian people love ceremony, they love royalty and they love glamour. They loved Princess Di, just as they love Princess Mary. People only hate elities, if they feel talked down to. Even then they still maintain a grudging respect for them. As I think Noelene has alluded to in other places, clothes are also sensual and there is nothing wrong with that.

Your appeal here lies in the fact that you are part of the club. You should talk yourself up, rather than down, as John Howard says. I say this as someone that has ceaselessly talked himself down and aimed lower than he really needed to. You've got something special, which others don't have, so you ought not to sacrifice that by neglecting basic form.

Read This Side of Paradise? Noblesse Oblige derives from rich, frat-boy princely culture.

Of course this dress code is all rubbish. My father always said to be suspicious of people who were always impeccably dressed as he indicated they were hiding flaws in their character.

If it's any sort of consolation, I'm reliably informed that RM Williams despaired each time Howard was seen in that Akubra as sales of that particular model have plummeted since he donned it.

Perhaps politicians of the ruling Liberal party should dress like they act.
However I am unable to think of an appropriate look - although long boots and a baton comes to mind.

Guest Ed Polly: Don't forget the fishnets Rex.

An high school teacher I knew once remarked that when he was a science teacher at high school, he wore jeans and t-shirts but after he joined the public service, he had to wear the suit and tie. He thought it was ironic that he had to dress up for his little cubicle in a department where no-one except other public servants would see him and when he was performing the very public role of a teacher in a public high schools, he was able to get away with something more casual. At the end of the day, it's all about judging other people by what they look like or, in this case, what they wear. If people are true to themselves, they wear what they want in the face of what other people think. Whether this constitutes 5 inch pumps, chanel suits and bright red lipstick, a suit and tie, t-shirt and jeans or whatever, is for each of us to decide and if other people don't like it, tough. If the vast majority of politicians gave themselves permission to be who they are instead of desperately trying to be another cog in a party machine, perhaps the Australian government wouldn't be so pathetic.

Margo, your characterisation of Hawker as Howard's "handpicked" Speaker rings a little hollow, given that media reports at the time show Howard didn't actually vote for Hawker in the ballot.

Marilyn, I find it astounding that, today, you're accusing Hawker and others of "whining", given that the candidate you voted for (via second preferences if not your primary vote) is engaged in the greatest whine/dummy spit in Australian political history.

I would have thought anyone who voted to make Latham PM last year would be feeling more than a little sheepish today.

Margo: Have you read his book? I haven't.

Michael: "The representatives of the people deserve respect - whether you agree with what they say and do or not."

In my Dad's house the rule was always if you want respect you have to earn it.

A politician has to earn respect through his or her actions. Rabbitting on about dress codes while behaving like a bunch of bannanas if anything reduces my respect in those politicians.

Let them clean up their language, get their actions together and behave like the statesmen (and women) they claim to be. Dressing like a king (or queen) doesn't make you one.

Michael Ekin Smyth (15/09/2005 6:12:37 PM): “It is all about respect.”

What is, Michael?

MES: “It is the parliament of the people."

Maybe it used to be. It is not now. Members’ first loyalty is to the Prime Minister and his Party Room, according to Little Johnny Himself. They no longer represent us. Not even the Labor ones, since Beazley appears to owe obeisance to Johnny as well.

MES: “The representatives of the people deserve respect - whether you agree with what they say and do or not.”

I would agree with you about real representatives of the people. I respect Windsor, Andren, and even Katter. But the party drones who serve their dictator – no way! And their leader treats us with utter contempt, which deserves nothing less than full reciprocation.

Howard does not “respect Australia and Australians”, as you put it. He and his do not deserve our respect. And in any case, how exactly would respect be shown by wearing clothes which disguise our true natures under a layer of drab conformity?

And even before Howard’s Coup, how was the abuse, muck-slinging and generally idiotic behaviour that goes on in Parliament supposed to show respect by the members for each other, for Australia or Australians?

I don’t care if they wear top hat and tails, Eton fashion. Spoilt, bratty, overgrown private schoolboys and those simulating them are exactly that, monkeys are monkeys, and if you pay them more, you get overpaid greedy monkeys.

Michael Ekin Smyth, you are right, it is about respect! How can anybody respect what goes on in our Parliament and how our Politicians Act?. How can the standards be so low? It is truly alarming and it shouldn't surprise anybody that our youth shows no respect.

Children learn by example and our Leaders are failing them.

Pathetic and childish to care more about dress and language than murder, destruction of democracy and other lunacy.

Madness to condemn swearing while locking up children and babies.

Who cares how people dress and speak as long as they are not breaking any law.

It is all about respect. It is the parliament of the people. The representatives of the people deserve respect - whether you agree with what they say and do or not. Margo's behaviour in this case - somewhat puerile in my opinion - shows a lack a respect for the democratic will of the people.

It is obviously an adolescent phase she is still passing through: but since she is now pushing her half century, it is probably time it was now brought to an end. If you respect Australia and Australians you should take the steps necessary to meet their traditions and expectations.

Margo: Hi Michael. Feel like doing some comments editing tonight? We're swamped at the moment. I'm at home in grunge mode.

Asron, I live in Adelaide and voted for the Greens so who is it I voted for who is doing a big dummy spit? I wanted nothing to do with the ALP since the TAMPA, and I thought I had made that very clear over the past 4 years.

Latham at least had a vision beyond killing Iraqis and locking up kids. He shook my hand and behaved like a reasonable facsimile of a civilised person.

He might be a bit foul mouthed, but then I sound like a gutter snipe most of the time and make truckies and wharfies blush when I am really furious.

Am I the only one who will stand up in defence of Michael (MES)?

It really doesn't matter whether you like the government of the day or the opposition of the day. Dressing appropriately for Parliament (or court, for instance) has everything to do with respecting the institution.

By dressing slovenly you are showing disrespect to the people of Australia. As, ideally, parliament is 'of the people, by the people for the people'.

To reiterate, all the politicians in Parliament house were there because they were elected by the people of Australia.

I don't hold with the selfish and childish notion that I should wear exactly what I like because I feel like it.

Would you dress like a slob for a friend's wedding or funeral? Would you dress in jeans and a T-shirt if the invite said formal? If the answer is yes, it shows you don't think much of the people you profess to care for.

Marilyn Shepherd: "I live in Adelaide and voted for the Greens so who is it I voted for who is doing a big dummy spit?"

Marilyn, when you voted for the Greens, you had to send your preferences somewhere. The Greens directed their preferences to Latham/Labor ahead of Howard/the Liberals. Therefore, if you voted Green (and followed their preference allocations), you in effect voted to make Mark Latham Prime Minister.

My problem isn't with Latham's language. My problem is with the fact that he's clearly a man of dangerous temper who is interested only in protecting himself.

Now we learn (from the Denton interview) that as early as February 2004 he was having thoughts about quitting the Labor leadership - yet he stood before the public and declared he was "ready to lead" during the campaign.

And you accuse Howard of being a liar?

Linda: "Would you dress like a slob for a friend's wedding or funeral? Would you dress in jeans and a T-shirt if the invite said formal? If the answer is yes, it shows you don't think much of the people you profess to care for."

Yes indeedy, I would dress in a way that shows my respect for a friend at their funeral (and for some friends that might be in a t-shirt and jeans), not because of respect for the institution of a funeral but because my friend earned my respect while they were alive.

An institution like parliament which is comprised of individual members only deserves respect if the members of that institution earn respect.

Yes there are certain institutions that are independent of individuals (such as the constitution) but I don't believe the constitution would care if I dress formally while reading it or not.

And anyway, why is clothing such an important measure of respect? How is a person who turns up in a suit and tells lies more respectful than a person who turns up in a t-shirt and tells the truth? I would have thought that the behaviour of a person was a better guide to whether they respect something or not. Indeed clothing is a bit like words, you can wear things at odds with who you really are in the same way you can say things at odds with who you really are, but the old cliche still holds actions speak louder than words.

I don't much like what I am hearing in parliament these days.

By all means judge people on appearances (after all if you don't know a person what else can you judge them by) but don't be surprised if your judgements turn out to be wrong!

Michelle, you've missed my point completely (as well as being somewhat obtuse).

First of all, we need to get away from the concept that running the country is something that politicians do. It is our parliament run on our behalf.

Showing respect by dressing appropriately is not deference to a politician (they are not our betters, they are our public servants), it is showing respect for ourselves.

That also goes some way in answering your second point: And anyway, why is clothing such an important measure of respect?

You are only partly right we can't judge people solely on what they wear. But have you ever heard of the saying you only have one shot at making a good first impression? And besides, it is about dressing appropriately for the job. I wouldn't expect my mechanic to be dressed in a suit, but I would my solicitor.

Listen to you argument in another context: "Why should I clean my house? Why should I mow the lawn and tend a garden? I don't need to impress the neighbours. My friends don't care if I live in a tip."

We do those things (clean house, dress appropriately) because it shows respect for ourselves. It is a reflection of how we see ourselves and how we relate to the rest of the world.

Naturally, I don't judge a person's full worth by what they are wearing, but when I am holding job interviews, someone dressed for business is going to have a better shot at getting the job than someone in jeans and T-shirt.

Their dress tells me that they respect themselves, take their vocation seriously, want to work for me and are ready to step into the role.

As far as I'm concerned, dress like a slob, you are a slob.

Linda, I think if nothing else, dressing/talking/presenting for business is necessary to silence critics. Once form is taken care of, it's a relief, and you can go ahead with working on substance. Otherwise you end up suffering under second-rate hacks that do nothing but shine their shoes.

So what Aaron? I live in Adelaide and still didn't vote for Latham or anyone to do with him.

For the record Latham got a swing for him in the election and Howard a swing against him. Again so what? What is this whining and whingeing about voting as if that is the be all and end all of the world?

Latham did not vote to go and kill people. Saying he is discontent with the ALP is hardly equal to that. He didn't say he would destroy the work rights of Australians.

Fair dinkum, some people on this forum have the most warped ideas of priority.

Locking up babies and kids is OK? Have you noticed we have not been doing that since July and the world as we know it did not end?

Lying about refugee parents trying to kill their kids and then going off and killing other kids is OK is it?

Manildra, I didn't have meetings with that man.

Heffernan v Kirby OK was it.

Breaking the Medicare safety net solid gold promise was OK?

Breaking the forests agreement OK?

How about leaving Afghanistan while they needed our help?

Come on Howard fans, tell me how come saying he was disillusioned is so much worse than the above?

Marilyn, if you think that by voting Green you "didn't vote for Latham or anyone to do with him" then you are the perfect example of people's ignorance re: the preferential voting system.

Ultimately, you have to choose between the two major parties.

The fact is that all the minor parties (the Greens included) are going to be eliminated during the count in almost all Reps seats - as indeed happened in Adelaide.

Assuming you followed the Greens' how to vote advice, you would have preferenced Labor ahead of the Liberals. Therefore, by voting Green, you voted Labor.

You can kid yourself all you like by voting for minor parties - the bottom line is they are nothing but preference machines for the majors.

Maybe a cold and cynical view, but it's also true.

Marilyn, it would appear that you don't understand the electoral system.

No Green Senator or MHR was elected for SA in the last election.

If you vote was not informal, your vote flowed via preferences to a Liberal or ALP senator/MHR.

The Liberals support Mr Howard, the ALP supported Mr Latham.

Thus your valid vote supported (in the end) either Mr Latham or Mr Howard.

If you did not fill out the boxes correctly, then you did not really vote.

Bai Ren (16/09/2005 4:12:30 PM), Aaron Kennedy (16/09/2005 2:50:27 PM):

You are, of course, right that in most electorates, the chances of any vote not ultimately transferring to the ALP-Liberal-National Coalition is infinitesimal. However, refusing to put any of these parties first does make a difference to them where it hurts: their hip pockets (in so far as political parties have those). Each party gets about $2 of federal funding for each first preference vote, so refusing to put them first does convey a useful message of disapproval. Marilyn's vote is achieving at least some of the effect she desires.

And if the protest votes are widespread enough, non-Coalition candidates do get in. It does happen occasionally - there are a few there now, and more in the Senate given the different voting system.

Well golly boys, and here was me who thought I had been voting for the past 33 years and getting it right. Thank you for the lesson.

I put the ALP second bottom and the Libs last. How about that.

If the choice was between Mr No-one for the ALP, Christopher Pyne or a donkey vote for the Greens I will go with the latter every time.

Who cares - what has voting got to do with dress codes? Do we have to wear shoes and things to vote?

We may as well face the fact that the electoral system of the Commonwealth is designed to confer legitimacy on the illegitimate, and constrain voters in their choice.

Does anyone hear remember Albert Langer and his disclosure/promotion of the idea that one could vote sequentially through the list of candidates one approved of, and then give all remaining candidates the same number i.e. 1,2,3,4,4,4.

The effect of this was to deliver a legitimate vote, which counted, until all your preferred candidates were eliminated and was then discarded, but was not counted as informal.

I remember using this technique to great effect in 1987 through the green movement, and it was one of the reasons Graham Richardson became a born-again greenie and produced results for us from Cabinet.

The major parties subsequently got together to change the Electoral Act and declare this kind of vote informal so that it would not count. They also made it a criminal offence to promote this style of voting. Albert Langer was imprisoned for a while because he disobeyed the new laws. He lost a High Court appeal against the laws.

Proportional representation, and optional preferential voting both achieve a more balanced and democratic outcome than our present Commonwealth electoral laws.

Anyone here think that Kim Beazley would countenance electoral reform?

BTW, I am always impeccably dressed. As a sign of respect for God, and acknowledging our tropical climate, I prefer a 3-piece suited of ultra-fine wool, crocodile boots a la Entsch, and a cream fedora adorned with Cassowary feathers.

On more formal occasions I add a balaclava and shotgun.

Ok, just for the record, whilst I don't officially approve of Margo pretending to be Kurt Cobain, the day I read this I laughed a very deep, happy laugh. Coupled with Latham's absolutely mortifying honesty, I now feel happy in a way that I haven't, for a long time. Brian, I think the best dressed in the World are the New Guinea highlanders. I'm glad Queensland hasn't bought in to the Sydney funeral parlour mentality. Don't ever let them do it.

DRESS NICE FOR THE REICH somewhat late

Margo on Hawker’s pantywaist dress idiocy“...But for the boys, jackets and ties are compulsory [in Howard’s Reiochstag].”

So should I get into a low cut silk evening frock, and wrap wrap with tiara and pearls as if I’m tooling up for tea with the Hs and a few sycophants and numbskulls at Kirribilli?

What about my lovely old Waffen SS togs, complete with gleaming jackboots?

We could pop in on Kevin Andrews, just to kill two birds with one stone. The poor unfortunate lad needs something to put a smile back on his glum, round, meaty little face.

What about a lively suggestion that all was going well with our Fuhrer’s War, with our Panzers rolling unopposed across the wheat fields of France, Poland, the Ukraine and... oh, not that war.

Well, OK, the Mesopotamian one. We always wanted that.

At last we have the oil fields south of Baku to keep the glorious Luftwaffe flying, and the Afrika Korps winning against the decadent Allies...

Oh, sorry. YOU mean Herr von Rumsfeld’s schlock and ore thing. Well, we ARE killing tonnes of Semites, so it can’t all be bad.

Well, I suppose one could even pack the Luger, just to give Kevin a frill. Let, him, you know... touch it.

Oberst Peter von Woodforde.