Wong and I are chalk and cheese. But here's where we've found common ground

It's not the duration that is of itself the achievement. It's what you do in that time that really matters.

So much goes across a minister's desk that we only get to see a small fraction of it.

We see what a government chooses to give priority to publicising or whatever the media focus on because for one reason or another it's topical at the time. The workload is substantial and we just can't possibly hope to see it all.

Nonetheless, the duration does tell us something. It says there's a resilience and determination, an inner strength that's worthy of acknowledgement and respect, irrespective of your politics.

Sure, plenty of men served longer. Remember, plenty also served much shorter terms.

However the plain fact is that when there's one or a few of you and 25 of the others, you're the odd one out.

That's reflected in your daily life in one way or another. Men just get an easier time of it. There's no denying that. Change as it has, Parliament is still a very blokey place.

You can whinge if you want. Attract publicity because you're in the minority, the victim.

But you're not there to talk about yourself. You're there to do your job.

Wong doesn't whinge. You might say since it's been onwards and upwards since being voted most popular girl at a flash private school, she's got little to whinge about. You'd be right.

But everyone has their own hardships.

The mistake some women in Parliament have made is to rabbit on about themselves and how they're treated.

They do so under the guise of drawing attention to the wider problem. Big deal. It doesn't bring about any change.

What does is when women get on with it and demonstrates that women will do just as good a job as men. Wong doesn't seem to be a whinger.

There's a certain irony to the fact that some blokes will still say: "Oh well, this or that woman only got the job because they had to have a woman." It's a cheap shot easily made and almost impossible to disprove.

Julie Bishop always had people saying she only got the deputy leadership because the Liberals needed more high-profile women.

The guys who say this sort of thing just don't seem to recognise that so many men got there simply because they were men. In an open competition blind to gender, plenty of guys just would not have cut the mustard. Incidentally, nobody says it about Wong.

Maybe half a century ago, in a discussion about getting more women into Parliament, an out-of-date old codger thought he was being really clever by announcing that "people should get jobs on merit!"

Former senator Kathy Sullivan (who unwisely transferred to the lower house) delivered a coup de grace. She asked, "so how did you get here?"

By a turn of events now lost on me, Joan Kirner, myself and Cheryl Kernot had a discussion at Aussies Bar in the new Parliament House about the not-so-competent men who managed to get preferment.

We agreed that the least competent woman in each party was clearly more competent than the least competent man.

Both men and women with opportunity and skills have a fair but not even chance at climbing the ladder. So how do we explain the largely male goofballs that get and retain good jobs?

I know I'm repeating myself, but the real test of equality is when a dopey woman can get as good a job as a dopey man can.

In one sense, you can say Wong has climbed above the incompetents and held her ground. She's held it against some guys who didn't have to work hard to get there, and others on straight merit.

Credit goes to her long-term partner, now wife. Politics for men and women can be a pretty lonely job. More so for women. The constant abuse and travel can be wearing. Without a supportive home base, it would be much harder.

MORE VANSTONE:

Correlation is not causation, but the University of Adelaide will no doubt notice that two of their graduates in arts/law (Wong and myself) are first and second on the female cabinet service list.

Third on the list is another University of Adelaide law graduate, Julie Bishop. Bishop's retirement saw her pip Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who was the first woman in cabinet with portfolio, by just three days. Guilfoyle was followed by Susan Ryan.

Imagine what life would have been like being the only woman in the Fraser or Hawke cabinets. Maybe you'd rather not. Sometimes Lady Luck, for no reason, just comes your way, and knowing both these incredible women in the old and new Parliament House is a jackpot that will stay with me for life.

Wong and I are, in so many ways, chalk and cheese. Differences are important. But so are commonalities. Apparently Kissinger, when he was negotiating between parties in dispute, instead of clarifying the details of the dispute would often insist on everyone working to list off the things on which they agreed. As the list expanded, the dispute, instead of being amplified, was put in perspective.

Wong and I have very different politics. Yet we share a university, chose the same degrees and have a possible addiction to the glorious laksa at Charles and Doreen's Asian Gourmet in the Adelaide Central Market.

Like the vast majority of Australians, we are both descendants of migrants.

Her family came much more recently, which highlights the openness, freedom and opportunity Australia offers. It is also a testament to her determination.

Ditto, incidentally, for Tanya Plibersek and no doubt others. I did my degrees part-time whilst working, which is a bit like climbing Mount Everest, if you're the first in your family to go to university. Perhaps we have determination as a common characteristic.

This is a very shallow reflection on our commonalities and differences. But we should all reflect on these things more often. We would surprise ourselves.

Parliament, indeed the world, would be a far better place if we could, while recognising our differences, at least acknowledge that there's some common ground. Generally much more than we at first imagine.