Liberal figures push for expiry dates on gender quotas in bid to win party support
Wednesday night's meeting of the NSW Liberal Women's Council is set to include preliminary discussions about gender quotas for party preselections, days after the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, said she was open to rule changes.
Proponents of quotas, including the NSW senator Maria Kovacic, say sunset provisions to remove preferential treatment for women must be included in any rule change.
The new House of Representatives will include just six Liberal women, a level of gender diversity not seen since the Howard era.
The president of the council, Berenice Walker, said practical solutions to bring in more women were urgently needed.
'Men are just not going to give up their power and that's where it needs to be mandated,' she said.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Walker warned 'review points' would be required for any quota plan to assess their effectiveness after certain thresholds were met.
'I've noticed that there are more people coming on board to discuss the potential for quotas. They do want to look at solutions.'
Kovacic said any quota rules would take multiple electoral cycles to be effective, and would require the support of state and territory divisions.
'Our goal must be genuine gender parity, with equal numbers of men and women contesting both marginal and safe seats,' she said.
'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.'
The senior Liberal frontbencher Angus Taylor and the former prime minister Tony Abbott are among the high-profile opponents of quotas. Taylor has said they 'subvert democratic processes' and has called for more mentoring of women as a measure to improve representation.
The federal Liberal vice-president and former MP Fiona Scott said quotas 'could be a solution', provided they were part of a suite of changes.
'We need more pathways and organisations for women to inspire professional women to join,' she said.
The shadow minister for women, Melissa McIntosh, said the quotas debate oversimplified the issue. She called for the review into the party's future, established after its devastating federal election defeat, to consider a range of mechanisms, including mentorship, pathways and quotas.
'The review must first and foremost, when it comes to women, look at addressing the culture of the Liberal party because you could have all the quotas in the world but that won't make any difference if the cultural issues aren't fixed,' McIntosh said.
'We need to reflect, attract and support women – in our communities, within our party and the parliament. There is no question the Liberal party needs greater female representation.'
The newly elected NSW Liberal senator Jess Collins said quotas were a bad idea, and ignored the many women who were preselected without preferential rules.
'I think that is a complete slap in the face for all of those terrific women, and I think it'll take the party backwards,' she said.
'I see gender quotas being weaponised as a means of consolidating factional power. We are trying now to move the New South Wales division out of that factional maelstrom, and I see gender quotas as a way to hold on to that power for those people at the top.'
The NSW Young Liberals president, Georgia Lowden, said party members were open to trying new approaches, because 'things aren't getting better'.
'We need structural and cultural reform to recruit, mentor and promote more women. We should look at quotas as a temporary measure to level the playing field while we build lasting change.'
'We need to show women across the country that there's a place for them in the Liberal party.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump ally and mega investor launches PAC to go against Musk's political ambitions - and takes jab at Tesla in its name
A mega investor and ally of President Donald Trump has launched a super PAC to challenge Elon Musk's political ambitions. James Fishback, a former Department of Government Efficiency adviser, launched the FSD PAC Tuesday to counter Musk's 'antics.' FSD, a swipe at Tesla's 'Full Self Driving,' stands for 'Full Support for Donald', and its goal is to ensure that Musk doesn't undermine or weaken Trump's hold over the Republican party, according to Politico. 'There's real frustration in our movement with Elon and his antics,' Fishback told the outlet. 'I'm a big believer in what he's doing in the private sector. But when it comes to politics, he's dead wrong on this.' Fishback, 30, stepped back from DOGE after Musk's outbursts on X about the president, where the Tesla CEO claimed Trump is in the Epstein files and attacked the Big, Beautiful Bill. Musk threatened to create his own political party as the feud between him and Trump reignited this week over the spending bill. 'If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,' Musk wrote on X. Where Musk follows through on plans to fund third-party hopefuls to challenge Trump-endorsed candidates, FSD will step in to counter the world's richest man, Fishback said. 'If Elon actually launches a new party to take down Trump, I'm starting a Super PAC to defend the MAGA candidates he targets,' Fishback wrote in a post on X. 'I'll need your help to stop this sabotage of President Trump's winning agenda.' The investor is putting $1 million of his own money into FSD in a display of loyalty to Trump, he said on X. Fishback is the founder of investment firm Azoria Partners, which launched at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. He was the mastermind behind plans to deliver DOGE dividends, where some savings gleaned from cuts would be given back to the taxpayer. Uncertainty surrounds the proposal now that Musk and Fishback have stepped away from DOGE. In an interview last year, Fishback told MarketWatch his success grew from his humble beginnings as the son of a bus driver and a Colombian immigrant. 'In ten years, I went from helping my dad sell watermelons on the side of the road to generating over $100 million in trading profits,' he told the outlet. Still, despite Fishback's efforts, GOP insiders aren't too worried about Musk's potential meddling in races, given his failed attempt to influence the outcome of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April. 'He's finished, done, gone. He polls terribly. People hate him,' an anonymous GOP operative previously told Politico before Musk officially exited the White House. 'He'd go to Wisconsin thinking he can buy people's votes, wear the cheese hat, act like a 9-year-old. ... It doesn't work. It's offensive to people.'
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The British political class have shown themselves at their worst
The result should never have been in doubt. That whips and ministers were nervous at all should be testament enough as to how badly this government is being run. The welfare reform Bill was finally passed with a majority of 75, about 100 less than Labour's notional majority. But there is something missing from ministers' and MPs' reactions to this 'victory': the cheers, such as they were, sounded forced. The smiles were wan. The congratulations looked half-hearted. Because this is a Bill whose passage means many losers and zero winners – a rare achievement in parliamentary politics. Of course, the real losers are those future claimants of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) who, depending on the detail of the latest concessions granted by Keir Starmer, will find it much more difficult to have their claims approved. But there are many more political losers. There are the rebels themselves, at least some of whom might have hoped for personal advancement in their political careers and who must now face years of being nominated for the crummiest, dullest standing committees – the traditional punishment for those who won't take their whips' advice. Then there are the Conservatives, who voted against a measure many of them clearly supported. There was even a shadow cabinet meeting last week at which Kemi Badenoch asked each member how the party should vote. That such a question even needs to be asked suggests there was at least some support for a more principled, less cynical stance. Then of course there is the Government, which, before this debate and vote, was in a slightly stronger, slightly more popular position than this evening and which now has achieved the passing of a measure that even ministers can no longer see the point of. It has spent a lot of its political credibility in securing a Bill that was originally sold as a genuinely reformist measure (it is not) and which would save the Treasury billions (it will not). Not the Commons' finest moment. A damaged legislature, a damaged government and, most importantly, a damaged prime minister. Happy anniversary, Sir Keir.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The Republicans' fatal divisions are pushing America into debt disaster
Republicans in Washington are labouring to produce a budget bill for President Trump, but as the Senate vote passing the bill showed, they have narrow margins in Congress and there are no Democrats willing to cross the aisle. And the process is not over yet. Any small group of four or five Republican dissidents still has enormous power to derail the process. That means they have leverage to demand changes. Since politicians on Capitol Hill play that game all the time, this is not a surprise. But the challenge for the Republican leadership is that their party is now profoundly divided, bordering on ideologically incoherent. Some conservative Republicans believe in Reagan-style fiscal restraint, for instance. They want a smaller government and declining deficits. But this puts them at odds with Trump-style Republicans who are explicitly opposed to reforming entitlements and seemingly don't care about ever-increasing levels of red ink. This division has not killed the bill. At least not yet. But there are still potential stumbling blocks ahead. The House and Senate have different versions of the Big Beautiful Bill, so this means a conference committee will be needed to develop a unified version. Yet the compromises required to create that unified version may cause some Republicans to revolt. To make matters more interesting, the division between Reaganites and Trumpies is not the only relevant split. There are other blocs of Republican lawmakers who might throw sand in the gears. The SALT deduction – a few Republicans from high-tax states claim they won't vote for any bill unless there is a big increase in the federal deduction for state and local taxes. Most Republicans dislike that loophole since it subsidises wasteful spending in states like New York and California, so the unanswered question is whether an increase in the deduction gains votes from a small group of Republicans without losing votes from the rest of the party. Green-energy pork – Republicans unanimously voted against Joe Biden's preposterously misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, a law that included all sorts of special subsidies for wind and solar energy. Unfortunately, now that those subsidies exist, the recipients have a big incentive to lobby in favour of keeping them. Many of those handouts go to projects in Republican states and districts, leading some Republicans to assert they will oppose the Big Beautiful Bill if the green-energy gravy train gets derailed. Once again, this creates a challenge for GOP leaders, since retaining too many of the subsidies may cause fiscal conservatives to withdraw support. Medicaid money laundering – America's main government-run health programme for poor people is supposed to be a joint responsibility for the central government and state governments. Over time, however, states have figured out how to shift ever-greater shares of the cost on to the federal taxpayers. One of the dodgiest tricks is for states to levy taxes on health providers, which triggers larger handouts from Washington. The health providers, such as hospitals, do not object to this scam since they get the additional federal money. Most Republicans want to end this farce, but a few GOP lawmakers want to curry favour with hospital lobbyists. The Republicans who want more spending for these three areas are not Reagan conservatives. For the most part, they also are not Trumpian populists. Instead, they are best described as old-fashioned transactional politicians. Their votes go to the highest bidder/biggest campaign contributors. But they also face pressure to conform with other Republicans. And they almost certainly want to extend the 2017 individual tax cuts (which will expire at the end of the year if the Big Beautiful Bill goes down in flames). Last, but not least, they don't want to get on Trump's bad side since it might mean a serious primary challenge during the next election cycle. So the bottom line is that the Republican leadership – and the White House – has the ability to twist arms. As such, the safest prediction is that all these conflicts and divisions somehow will be resolved and Trump will have a victory. But it may be a Pyrrhic Victory in that America is probably stumbling toward some sort of fiscal crisis. Simply stated, it is unsustainable to have the burden of government spending grow faster than the private sector for an extended period of time. Even if a crisis can be avoided, that type of fiscal irresponsibility eventually will mean higher taxes, ruinous debt, or inflation. Perhaps all three. Unless, by some miracle, there's a Javier Milei in America's future.
