Opposition Leader Sussan kickstarted the debate about quotas for women in the Liberal Party in a clever way. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
What to do about women in the Liberal Party?
It seems that’s a question the party itself just can’t seem to answer.
Just ask any bloke and you’ll be told how difficult, complex, delicate and confounding the whole issue is.
Any bloke in the right wing of the Liberal Party, that is.
Because other than them, it’s pretty simple – if increased female representation is wanted then some sort of quota system is a pretty clear solution to the problem.
But it’s not that simple for the remaining old guard who feel threatened by the prospect of more women on the front bench, the back bench, or anywhere near the inside of the party room.
After all, there’s only so many jobs to go round right?
That’s why it’s perhaps a little heartening that, Angus Taylor aside, most of the voices being heard and reported on the topic this week are those of women already in the party.
They’ve been having a decent debate and there’s been a mix of considerations thrown on the table.
The NSW Women’s Council met on Wednesday and while the quotas discussion was behind closed doors, there have been enough leaks to give some clear insight into what’s being thrown around.
NSW Senator Maria Kovavic is in favour of quotas, but she thinks a sunset clause might be required.
That is, apply quotas for a couple of electoral cycles and once the number of women elected is at a respectable level, then take the quotas away.
“Our goal must be genuine gender parity, with equal numbers of men and women contesting both marginal and safe seats,” the Guardian reported her saying prior to the gathering.
“Achieving this goal will likely take two election cycles.
“Once that balance is reached, we can return to the existing system with confidence that equity has been successfully embedded.
“A sunset clause would be an appropriate mechanism to ensure the temporary nature of a quota system.”
That’s a worthwhile contribution to the debate.
It could be an easier way for some than fully jumping in at the deep end and it might help drag more men to the table if they think it might be just a “phase” they need to “endure”.
Here’s a novel idea though — why not let the women in the party make that call?
The Federal shadow minister for women Melissa McIntosh has advocated for more than just quotas.
She wrote to the women’s council saying an overhaul of the party’s culture when it comes to gender equality is needed.
It is too big an issue for a simple yes or no answer to the quotas questions, she said.
“Gender equality in the Liberal Party isn’t solely about numbers — it’s about representation, culture and the systems that support a woman’s experience from joining the party to rising in its ranks,” Ms McIntosh wrote.
“When a woman reaches leadership, those foundations must be strong enough to withstand attempts to push her out, including the kinds of aggressive behaviour, out of area branch stacking and membership blocking I have personally experienced.
“I urge that the broader review of the Liberal Party include a thorough evaluation of our culture, structures and systems.
“A structural re-design might consider gender-balanced candidate pools to ensure equality of opportunity — consistent with our values — rather than prescribing outcomes.
“We should also examine leadership pipelines, mentorship initiatives and other evidence-based mechanisms that reflect our principles.
“Culture and structure must evolve together.”
Others in the room suggested quotas for women would be patronising, unfair to those women who got there without quotas, and not democratic (no, Angus Taylor wasn’t in the meeting – it was for women only).
What’s good about this whole episode of the “women in the Libs” debate and the “should we/shouldn’t we” discussion over the imposition of quotas, is that it’s being progressed by women.
New Opposition Leader Sussan Ley kick-started the debate in the cleverest of ways during her National Press Club speech last week when she suggested she was open to quotas and that she’s fine either way if state divisions of the party do or don’t adopt them.
What she’s not fine with, she said, was not having more women preselected in time for the next federal election.
If that wasn’t throwing down the gauntlet, nothing is.
And that’s where the solution to this issue lies, with the women already in the party.
Hey fellas, they’ve got this so why not leave them to it?
