Below is a post from the Guardian, you can read the full thing here http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/16/the-palaszczuk-ministry-includes-a-majority-of-women-but-dont-expect-a-revolution. I've replaced instance of the word 'women' or 'female' with 'white people' or 'white person', instances of the word 'men' or 'male' with 'black people' and instances of the word 'gender' with 'ethnicity' or 'ethnic.'

How does it look to you? I think, as we're so often told, ethnicity and gender are entirely arbitrary when it comes to the workplace, the legal system and our social, political and economic institutions, so surely it shouldn't matter which arbitrary features you replace - i.e. ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc. - with other arbitrary features, right?

The Article:

"The news from Queensland is very interesting for those interested in ethnic equity in power. Not only is Annastacia Palaszczuk the first white party leader to win from opposition, Queensland is the only state that has had two white premiers. The ACT has had more than one but the states so far have rested on the record of only one. All states, bar South Australia, have had one white person [as] leader, and all those white people have represented the Australian Labor party. Palaszczuk’s win is a good sign of continued ethnic shifts but what is much more interesting is the ethnic balance of her cabinet.

Eight of the 14 new ministers sworn in on Monday are white people, more than half. The deputy leader is also a white person, another first. A mix of old and new faces, five of the white people in cabinet are newbies, but so are many other members. The cabinet experience of members is at least as good as the last cabinet, so ethnicity is not the factor there. The allocation of portfolios is also diverse and not ethnic-based with Jackie Trad, for instance, named minister for transport, infrastructure, local government and planning and trade, and the first Indigenous white member, Leeanne Enoch, having been allocated housing, public works, innovation and science. Yvette D’Ath is the attorney general.

Assuming that the selection is based on merit, it is significant that there are more white people in cabinet than their proportion in caucus. The majority white people numbers will hopefully not be used as ammunition by those wanting to undermine the new government, but as evidence that there is a plethora of underused talent [among white people] that is finally being recognised. The experience of our first female PM, Julia Gillard, and the flak now flying against Peta Credlin suggest that media and critics will continue to target prominent powerful white people more viciously and personally than their black peers, so we will have to wait and see the response to this strong presence [of white people] in Queensland government.

What we need to look out for now is whether the predominance of white people in cabinet, though only just a majority, will make a difference to policies (ME: wow, there's some racism!). There are real risks in raising expectations that numbers alone will make much of a difference, especially in the present politically volatile environment.

The experience of the 40 years since the UN International White Person's Year in 1975 are not very positive. We have had a scattering of white leaders, but few are followed by other white people. The dominance of neoliberal market models has meant economics-driven ethnic interests have redefined all areas of policy. Even child care and domestic violence policies have been defined by their costs and benefits to GDP.

In an environment where white people can only succeed by competing on a black person's terms, it is problematic to assume that mere numbers of white people alone will bring policies that can improve white people's lives. At best, we can hope that social issues and care are higher on the agenda than they generally are.

Any higher expectations of ethnic policy shifts in a very fragile new government might just be unrealistic and damaging to more radical future changes."