Shadow minister for women calling for systemic Liberal Party change beyond quotas
In a letter to the NSW Women's Council that met on Wednesday night to discuss gender quotas, Ms McIntosh writes that while she is open to that idea, she wants bigger systemic change that involves experts in forcing cultural change in the party.
"Too much is at stake to rely on instinct or assumption," she writes in the letter.
Liberal leader Sussan Ley's National Press Club speech featured her claims she would consider quotas if the party's state divisions saw them as the solution to gender equity.
Days later Angus Taylor said mentoring and recruitment was a better way to do it, adding that the Labor Party "subverted democracy" with its quota strategy.
"I caution against reducing the complexity of this issue to a 'yes or no' on quotas.
"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. 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," she writes.
The new shadow minister writes that women entering politics need mentorship, networks and "most significantly at this stage in our Party's evolution, cultural change".
McIntosh writes that strong systems help open the door, but it is the party's culture that determines whether "women stay, thrive, and reach the heights of leadership and success".
"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."
Ms McIntosh warns that culture does not shift on sentiment alone. "Systems do not change without redesign. This review must be rigorous, principled, and data-driven, anchored in the values we stand for. If we get this right, I truly believe real, lasting change is possible."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
30 minutes ago
- ABC News
Alan Kohler on raising the GST
Sydney Pead: The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has set his sights on tax reform, which will be the centrepiece of a meeting of the nation's best policy minds next month. But is a big shake-up of the tax system even possible in the current political climate? Today, the ABC's finance expert, Alan Kohler, on why these experts would be better off talking about artificial intelligence and even a hike to the GST instead. I'm Sydney Pead, on Gadigal land in Sydney, this is ABC News Daily. Sydney Pead: Alan, the government's economic reform roundtable is next month and no doubt you're very excited about that. Just tell me first, what is this talkfest and who's coming to it? Alan Kohler: So it's going to be in the cabinet room. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, hasn't said exactly how many people are coming, but he said that there's 25 seats around the table. So whether there's going to be some people standing up for three days behind them, I don't know. The 10 initial invitees include Danielle Wood, the chair of the Productivity Commission. Then there's four people from the ACTU, but two of them will be attending as alternates to the secretary and the president. So the secretary, Sally McManus, is coming and the president, Michele O'Neil. There's also the head of the Business Council, head of the Chamber of Commerce, head of the Australian Industry Group, and the head of the Small Business Organisations of Australia Group. So that's four people from business organisations, plus Cassandra Goldie, head of the Australian Council of Social Services. And that's the 10 so far. Sydney Pead: Right, okay. So these sessions are supposed to be focused on three priorities, productivity, budget sustainability and economic resilience. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, is excited about it. He's even signalled bold tax reform could be discussed. Jim Chalmers, Treasurer: Now no sensible progress can be made on productivity, resilience or budget sustainability without proper consideration of more tax reform. I don't just accept that, I welcome that. Sydney Pead: Alan, in an ideal world, how ambitious should these participants be when it comes to fixing the tax system? How broken is it? Alan Kohler: Well, it's pretty broken. The last time we had a look at it was Ken Henry in 2010, commissioned by Kevin Rudd, and he produced a massive report on the future tax system, which was almost entirely rejected. And the only bit of it that was used was the introduction of a minerals tax, which ended up being repealed. So look, I don't think there's any kind of expectation that that sort of thing is going to happen. When Jim Chalmers talks about budget sustainability being the goal of tax reform, presumably that means more tax. Jim Chalmers, Treasurer: I am personally willing to grasp the nettle, to use an old saying, I am prepared to do my bit, the government is prepared to do its bit. And what we'll find out in the course of the next few months is whether everyone is prepared to do their bit as well. Alan Kohler: So the question from the tax reform part of the discussion, it seems to me, is going to revolve around what's going to be the extra tax. Are they going to bring in a new tax? Or are they going to increase an existing tax, i.e. the GST? Or are they going to have a go at something like an inheritance tax, which a lot of countries have, or a wealth tax, which some countries have got as well? Look, my view is that I don't think Anthony Albanese is going to let him do anything particularly bold, because the Prime Minister has made it clear that he's not interested in big shake-ups. Sydney Pead: But the government's already making some changes, right? Like its plan to increase tax for people with superannuation balances above $3 million. Alan Kohler: Look, that's pretty small. It's sort of a toe in the water of a wealth tax. And everyone's complaining that it's on unrealised gains, which is basically if the value of your super fund increases, even though you don't sell anything and haven't made cash gains, you still have to pay the tax. It's on gains that haven't been realised. And everyone's whinging like mad about that. And it's really the first time that Australia has had a go at that kind of unrealised gain tax. And Jim Chalmers is saying they're going to stick with that. They're not going to make any changes to it. And so he's kind of staring down the opponents of it at this stage. But it's a fairly small thing. You know, it's not going to raise a lot of money. It's certainly not going to get the budget back into surplus. Sydney Pead: And tax reform, it's always a tricky business because there's always winners and there's always losers. So if rewriting the tax system is a bit too hard for this roundtable, you've got another suggestion that they could be talking about instead, artificial intelligence. So why is that so important? Because there are some big moves on AI in China and the US worth taking note of, right? Alan Kohler: Well, yeah, that's right. So look, in my view, the whole, or most of the discussion about productivity needs to focus on artificial intelligence because we're in the middle of this, what's clearly a revolution in technology that China is well ahead of virtually everyone else on. The United States is also having a go at it. President Trump's having, on July the 23rd, he's having what he calls AI Action Day, which is going to be a whole series of executive orders designed to regulate or mainly promote the use of artificial intelligence in the United States. So that's happening. That's three weeks before the roundtable. I think that they should have a look at what the United States is doing and have a talk about whether we should do the same thing and what bits of that should we pick up and what shouldn't we pick up. I mean, they need to think about what does Australia have to do to get us using AI in such a way that improves productivity. Sydney Pead: And you had a couple of ideas here. One of them was to develop a national system for helping small and medium businesses get their employees to write better AI prompts. Can you just tell me about that? Alan Kohler: I'm not by no means an AI expert. But from what I understand, there are kind of two ways for companies to use AI. One is top down, one's bottom up. Top down involves the CEO deciding to bring AI in to do a function and basically replace workers. So it might be doing the call centre, it might be doing data entry, and that's basically a replacement of human beings. The bottom up way is where people who are working for the company use AI to improve their own efficiency and productivity. And a lot of that comes down to how good you are at writing a prompt for the AI. The question is, what can the government do to help small businesses to better use AI? Can the government set up some sort of prompt writing advice centre that would help people do that? Sydney Pead: Right. So it can be used more effectively. Alan Kohler: Yeah. And I thought that was pretty interesting. Sydney Pead: I guess the other issue is the fear around people losing their jobs. So one of these other ideas is to modernise the welfare safety net. Can you just tell me a bit about that? Alan Kohler: Well, so at the moment we've got a system called JobSeeker, which has a certain amount of money, which is clearly everyone says is not enough, clearly not enough. And also it has a mutual obligation system. So in order to qualify for JobSeeker, you have to keep applying for jobs. That system has been around a long time and it sort of predates AI. The question is, will AI now result in a large amount of permanent unemployment? There's a lot of opinions both ways about this. A lot of people say, well, you know, everyone will find another job. Previous technological revolutions in history have not resulted in long term permanent unemployment. And it is true that, you know, we've got a lot of robots in the world and unemployment is in Australia 4.1%. So it's not as if the robots that are there have caused a large amount of unemployment. But I think there is a fair bit of fear as to, you know, well, what happens if there is this sort of big increase in unemployment as a result of AI and so people are scared of it? And I think that's understandable. What is possible is some kind of safety net for people thrown out of work by AI. How that might work, I don't know. I mean, it's difficult. Can you sort of separate off people who lose their jobs because of AI? You probably can't. How would you fund it? Could you fund it with a tax on AI? The problem with that is that you want to encourage the use of AI. You don't want to tax it. Taxing something discourages its use. So you want to actually, if anything, you want to lower the tax on AI so that people are more inclined to use it so that productivity improves. So, you know, it's kind of difficult to get your head around. But I guess that's what you get 25 smart people in a room for. Sydney Pead: Yeah, that's right. So they could potentially strike the right balance there and improve the economy and productivity at the same time through AI. Moving on, let's talk a little bit about what other changes could come out of this roundtable. There's one change you think might be possible to try, which could balance the budget and look after more people. But a lot of people will hate hearing this from you, Alan. We should perhaps raise the GST. And by how much? Alan Kohler: Well, look, there clearly does need to be more tax revenue. We've been through this before. In 1985, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating held a tax summit because there wasn't enough tax revenue. And they went to that tax summit with three proposals. One was the GST. Another was the capital gains tax. And the third thing was fringe benefits tax. And the tax summit happened in 85. And two of those three things got up. The GST did not. Treasury also said the same thing to John Howard in 1998 and said, you've got to have a GST. And so he went back on his promise not to have a GST. So we got one in 2000 because tax revenue fell short. And now it's fallen short again. So the question is, do we come up with another new tax as we did in 85 and 2000? Or do we basically just increase the ones we've got? And everyone's agreed that we've got too much tax revenue coming out of income taxes. I'm not sure this is right. But anyway, it seems to be a consensus view. And you need to also have a lower company tax rate because company taxes are coming down around the world and you kind of lose, you lose companies. They move. The only thing left really is GST. And the average GST around the world is between 15 and 20 percent. So increasing our GST from 10 to 15 percent would not be out of line with the rest of the world. Also, we exclude a lot of stuff like food. And so the proposal would be to increase the rate and to broaden the base so that you pick up more things. The problem with the GST is that it's regressive, not progressive like income taxes. That is to say it affects poor people much more than the well-off because they tend to spend more of their income on things that are subject to GST. So how would you make it less regressive? And Richard Holden and Rosalind Dixon, who are professors at the UNSW in Sydney, came up with an idea, which is did you have a tax-free threshold of GST? They proposed 12,000 a year, 1,000 a month. So all spending up to that amount per year would be GST free. Sydney Pead: And so what, the taxpayer would then get that money back each year? Alan Kohler: Well, that was the idea. I mean, I rang Richard Holden up and said, you know, how would you do that? How can the government possibly know what each person is spending? And the answer is he said, well, you don't have to know. You just give back the GST on that 12,000, which is $1,800. He reckons it should be in two lots of 900. So every six months you get a lump of 900 bucks in your bank account. Just means that you've, you know, you're getting back the GST you've paid on the first $12,000 of your spending each year. And I think that's a very interesting proposal. Sydney Pead: Yeah. Something that they could talk about at the round table, perhaps. Alan Kohler: Well, he reckons that you'd end up with a net extra $45 billion in revenue, which you could use to cut income taxes as well as balance the budget. Sydney Pead: Okay. Many voters would say the government does just need to balance the budget and spend less. Is that an option? Alan Kohler: Well, of course they say that. And yes, that's good in theory, but really it's the community, it's Australian society that puts the demands on the government. You know, the big things are not that available to change. You know, I mean, we've got the NDIS now and it's the Australian community has decided to look after disabled people better than we have in the past. Now, I think that the growth in the NDIS is keeping the treasurer and treasury awake at night because it's growing too quickly, but no one's suggesting any big cuts in the NDIS. And they're not going to cut the aged pension and they're not going to cut, you know, healthcare in general, because apart from anything else, the population is ageing. Actually, healthcare costs are going to increase inevitably. There's nothing they can do about it. And now also there's pressure to increase defence spending. We've agreed to this AUKUS thing where we're going to spend billions of dollars on nuclear submarines. So I just think that the pressure on the budget is such that there's nothing they can do about it. Really, the only thing they can do is increase tax revenue. But I mean, all of the business group representatives, business counsellors, etc. at the roundtable will say that, oh, no, you've got to cut spending. And so they'll end up having an argument that'll last all day about that and waste, just waste time. Sydney Pead: And they should be talking about AI after all. Alan Kohler: I think so. That's right. Sydney Pead: Alan, thanks so much. Alan Kohler: Not at all. Sydney Pead: Alan Kohler is the ABC's finance expert. This episode was produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon and Sam Dunn. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sydney Pead. ABC News Daily will be back on Monday. Thanks for listening.
Daily Telegraph
an hour ago
- Daily Telegraph
Amazon's robotics, AI push not eliminating jobs, company says
Don't miss out on the headlines from Technology. Followed categories will be added to My News. Amazon warehouses are still a viable job option for unskilled and entry-level workers, executives of the e-commerce giant say, despite massive robotics and AI investments. Speaking to NewsWire in Japan this week, Amazon's global head of PR for robotics and AI, Xavier Chao, compared AI robots and sorting machines to offices having a coffee machine and snacks close to the desks. 'Retention is very, vitally important for us if we want to continue to manage and sustain our business and grow; we have to retain our workforce,' Mr Chao said. 'And so we think that innovation is part of the solution of creating a nice workplace that attracts people, and retains staff.' A worker in front of an item-by-item timer at their station inside Amazon's Chiba Minato warehouse in Tokyo. Picture: NewsWire / Blair Jackson Australia has eight Amazon 'fulfilment centre' warehouses; seven of these do not have Amazon's robots. The custom designed and built robots operate using AI, moving stacks of products for humans to pick and put into boxes. Australia's robotised Amazon warehouse is at Kemps Creek in Sydney, and employs about 2500 workers. With Australia's comparatively low-tech Amazon facilities - compared to warehouses in comparable countries - retraining Australian workers to fix and maintain Amazon's robots has stalled. In June, Amazon announced it would be investing $20bn in data centres in Australia, reiterating concerns about the e-commerce company's entrenchment in the Australian economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined Amazon Web Services chief executive Matt Garman in Seattle in June as AWS announced a $20bn investment into data centre infrastructure in Australia. Picture: NewsWire / PMO Anthony Albanese faces internal pressure from high-ranking Labor MPs, The Australian reports, over accusations Amazon undermines labour laws and employs tax avoidance tactics. These criticisms are echoed by unions - the ACTU, TWU and the SDA - who claim Amazon Australia's workplace practices are unethical. Asked if operating in countries with relatively strong workplace protections was tough for Amazon, Mr Chao said 'Right now, what we're really hyper-focused on is can these systems actually benefit our frontline workers, and getting feedback from them'. He argues wide-scale automation is good for workers. 'If we can create the most innovative workplace that we possibly can, we want to try to do three things. 'Safety … Ease - all of us want to have an easier job. 'And then three, it's exposure. So a lot of people who come and work at an Amazon facility, you know, there are people from all walks of life.' *Amazon paid for NewsWire's travel and accommodation in Japan Originally published as Amazon's robotics, AI push not eliminating jobs as tech giant continues automation wave
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
'More can be done': The knowledge gap Australians have with their retirement nest egg
The final increase to the superannuation guarantee has taken effect, meaning employers are now required to pay a minimum contribution of 12 per cent into their employees' super funds. But around a third of people are unaware where their retirement funds are invested — a similar proportion don't know their super balance, and one in 10 have never checked. These were the findings of a survey of 3,146 Australians conducted by the Commonwealth Bank, which suggested the knowledge gap about how super is invested was higher among gen Z and women, at 43 per cent. Jessica Irvine, the bank's personal finance expert, said people have more confidence in managing their day-to-day finances, but need more assistance to understand retirement options. Echoing her views, Wayne Swan, the former federal treasurer who oversaw the legislation guaranteeing the increase from nine to 12 per cent, told SBS News that more needed to be done to engage Australians with their retirement planning. Swan, now chair of Cbus, an industry super fund, said: "I think that all superannuation funds acknowledge and do their best to achieve [that], and there's always more that can be done." What is happening with superannuation? Thirty-four years ago, former prime minister Paul Keating shared his vision of an Australian future that included a 12 per cent target for compulsory super contributions. Now, he said, that system "finally matures". The superannuation guarantee has risen since 2012 to reach 12 per cent. In a statement to mark the 1 July increase to 12 per cent, Keating said it "will guarantee personal super accumulations in excess of $3 million at retirement" for someone entering the workforce today. "Superannuation, like Medicare, is now an Australian community standard, binding the whole population as a national economic family, with each person having a place," he said. How did we get here? Superannuation in Australia stretches back to the early 20th century, but there were no attempts to institutionalise universal compulsory contributions before the mid-1980s. In 1985, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, with the support of the then-Hawke government, presented a National Wage Case to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission about a 3 per cent compulsory contribution for all Australian workers. The tribunal sided with the union in 1986 but ruled it as optional — subject to agreement between employers and employees. Five years later, in Keating's final federal budget as treasurer, the 3 per cent superannuation guarantee levy was made compulsory. It came into effect the following year, when Keating was prime minister, with the introduction of a superannuation guarantee charge to penalise employers who don't meet their contribution obligations. The mandatory rate then gradually increased to 9 per cent by 2002. It was supposed to reach 12 per cent by 2000, but, under the Howard government, there were no further increases until 1 July 2013. In 2010, two years after the Global Financial Crisis and in response to the findings of the Henry Tax Review, then-treasurer Swan unveiled a plan to incrementally lift the superannuation guarantee levy to 12 per cent. He said it would increase by 0.5 per cent each year between 2013 and 2019. In 2010, then-treasurer Wayne Swan (pictured right) announced a plan to gradually increase the superannuation guarantee levy from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. Source: AAP / Alan Porritt But two months after it rose to 9.25 per cent in 2013, Tony Abbott stormed to a landslide election victory — and followed through on an election promise to delay increases to the guarantee due to cost pressures on small businesses. The government failed to legislate the delay the following year, and the rate was lifted to 9.5 per cent — a level it remained at for seven years. It wasn't until Australia was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that the incremental increases began. Starting in 2021, it rose by 0.5 per cent each year. LISTEN TO SBS News 30/06/2025 08:22 English The 12 per cent milestone Australia's superannuation system now manages over $4 trillion in assets, ranking as the fourth-largest pension market in the world. The 12 per cent milestone is expected to propel Australia to second place within a decade — just behind the United States — despite its relatively small population. Swan said the superannuation guarantee levy not only delivers a secure retirement for all Australians, but "fundamentally alters the distribution of wealth in our community". "It gives access to growth assets to everyone in the community. From a building worker through to a professional in the office tower, everyone in Australia gets to own a piece of the wealth of this great country in a way that's never before been possible," he said. Swan said he's "absolutely proud to have been part of this story". "I always think of those pioneers, particularly the unionists, who fought to establish this scheme 40 years ago. What it really shows is that ordinary working people can effect change in a society like ours," he said. "What visionaries they were, and what they have done to make our country not only a bigger and more successful economy, but a fairer one as well." What is a 'comfortable retirement'? Swan said while the six-year delay in achieving a 12 per cent increase came at a cost to Australian superannuation balances, the benefits are greater from having finally reached that milestone. "For someone who's, say, 30 years old now, it's going to mean an extra $130,000 in their retirement," he said. That follows recent modelling by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA). The super peak body's retirement standard for June 2025 projects a 30-year-old today on the median wage of $75,000 and a $30,000 super balance would witness that figure rise to $610,000 by the retirement age of 67. This amount exceeds ASFA's estimate of the $595,000 needed to afford a comfortable retirement for singles and $690,000 for couples. ASFA defines a 'comfortable' retirement as someone who owns their home outright, is in good health, can afford top-level private health insurance, has a good car, and engages in a range of leisure and recreational activities, including taking one domestic trip a year and one international trip every seven years. Business concerns There are concerns that a string of 1 July changes , including the increase to the superannuation guarantee levy, could hit businesses and place further pressure on cash flow. Luke Achterstraat, CEO, Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, said: "The increase of the superannuation guarantee comes at a time when award rates have also increased 3.5 per cent, national productivity is in decline, and payroll tax and workers' compensation insurance will also increase." There are concerns that an increase to the superannuation guarantee levy and other changes that took effect on 1 July could negatively impact small businesses and further pressure their cash flow. Source: AAP "This puts small businesses between a rock and a hard place, needing to either absorb or pass on these costs to consumers," Achterstraat said. Beyond 12 per cent: Where to from here? The 0.5 per cent increase to 12 per cent is the last one legislated by the Australian government. However, with life expectancy improving, would we need more in our nest egg, and is there a case for raising the superannuation guarantee even further? "I think there's going to be a debate about whether we need to go above 12 per cent," Swan said. "I think 12 per cent can certainly guarantee quite a dignified retirement for all Australians, but that will be a discussion that will be had in the years ahead."
