Women don't need a quota

Introducing a quota for female representation within the Liberal Party would be a step back, not forward, writes Lydia Bevege.

Last week, Victorian Liberal Senator Judith Troeth called for a quota system to be introduced in the Liberal Party to bolster the number of female Liberal MPs. The Op-Ed, published in The Age, advocated requiring 40% of pre-selected Liberal candidates to be female in the first Federal election after 2010/2011.

I disagree with Senator Troeth regarding the need for affirmative action in the Liberal Party. We need only look at the embarrasing results of parliamentary quotas in the Australian Labor Party to see the negative consequences of affirmative action.

The enforcement of gender quotas upon the pre-selection of ALP candidates has resulted in the election to Parliament of some female MPs who are, to put it politely, not exactly rising stars of the Labor movement. Take, for instance, Amanda Rishworth, Labor MP for Kingston, who is known widely by her ALP colleagues and Press Gallery journalists as 'Noddy Rishworth' due to her only apparent role in the Labor Party - to nod vigorously behind the person at the dispatch box during question time.

Or, consider Julie Collins, Labor MP for Franklin, whose only claim to fame has been to provide the Liberal Party with advertisement fodder by spectacularly failing to answer a question on the Government's tax on mining - you can see the ad here.

Indeed, male Labor Senators are so disparaging of their female colleagues and the fact that they had a more cushy ride to pre-selection that they openly refer to female Senators as ´quota queens´. Gender quotas have only bred hostility and resentment between male and female MPs in the ALP, rather than creating a more gender-equal caucus, as proponents of affirmative action envision.

Of course, some might argue that without Labor's affirmative action policies, we may not have a female Prime Minister today. This argument looks tenuous, however, when you consider the fact that if Julia Gillard is ruthless enough to roll an elected Prime Minister to get to the top office, then she is probably not so oppressed or victimised as to need a quota system to get her in to Parliament in the first place. Her victorious battle against the Victorian ALP factional heavy weights to achieve pre-selection is a testament to just how much she didn`t need affirmative action to get into Parliament.

By contrast, female Liberals around the country occupy important leadership positions and have done so without the help of affirmative action. Consider the Deputy Federal Leader, Julie Bishop, South Australia's Opposition Leader, Isobel Redmond, and Victoria´s Deputy Liberal Leader, Louise Asher - all women.

Many of the Party´s rising stars around the country are also female - Shadow Cabinent Minister Sophie Mirabella, recently elected member for Higgins, Kelly O´Dwyer, and preselected candidate for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson. The next NSW Liberal Government is likely to feature many senior female frontbenchers, including former Sex-Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward. Indeed it was the Liberal Party, under the Howard Government, that saw the nation´s longest serving female Cabinet Minister - Amanda Vanstone.

In the youth wing of the Liberal Party, female members are also taking on leadership positions. The Immediate Past President of the Federal Young Liberals is Rachel Fry, whilst the Australian Liberal Students´ Federation have just elected Sasha Uher as President.

To suggest that any of these talented women would have required affirmative action to get where they are today is frankly an insult to them. The problem with any sort of quota system is that it assumes that women are too weak, too incompetent and too lacking in political skills to get to the upper echelons of politics without a helping hand. Instead of obsessing over the percentage of women in Parliament, proponents of affirmative action should instead consider just how talented the women who are already in Parliament are, as well as those women who have been pre-selected by the Liberal Party to run for Parliament.

The outstanding calibre of women in leadership roles in the Liberal Party is something to be applauded, not shamed because the number of those women fails to meet some arbitrary percentage.

In my current position as the Secretary of the University of Melbourne Student Union, I see the result of affirmative action policies on an daily basis. Women at the union demand that Students´ Council meetings be conducted to a 'progressive speaking list', whereby females are given first priority to speak on issues ahead of male councillors because of supposed gender inequality. Do we expect the Liberal Party Room to conduct its meetings in the same way? Or should female MPs be given their own Party Room to meet in, so that they can conduct meetings in a 'safe place' away from the male dominance of Party Room?

I know that such a scenario sounds far-fetched, but it´s important to remember that while quotas may seem relatively innocuous, they hail from the same ideological space as the policies I outlined above do.

I believe that the Liberal Party is an attractive organisation to many women because it treats females as equals, not weak incompetents who need a quota to be elected as they cannot succeed on merit alone. This is perhaps the reason why the Liberal Party has attracted and continues to attract so many women of such a high calibre. To adopt the affirmative action policies advocated by Senator Troeth would jeopordise the Party´s appeal to the next generation of outstanding female Liberals.

Lydia Bevege is the Secretary of the University of Melbourne Student Union and a member of the Liberal Party of Victoria.

Comments

[Kieran MacGillicuddy]

1.

Outstanding article.

[.]

2.

Goward should disavow her previous role in the ridiculous position of sex discrimination commish.

She didn't even do her job properly!

"Women at the union demand that Students´ Council meetings be conducted to a 'progressive speaking list', whereby females are given first priority to speak on issues ahead of male councillors because of supposed gender inequality."

[John]

3.

We need to stop pretending men and women are equal when they clearly are not.

[Vikas Nayak]

4.

Has gender ever been an issue in the liberal party?

I know some of the older Liberal's occasionally gaffe or stick their foot in their mouths by saying something that can be construed as sexist (especially Abbott), but i've never seen anything within the public facade of the party that gives the slightest vision that women are held down or propped up in the party.

All politics is a popularity contest but i've never seen anything to indicate gender plays a part of that in the liberals.

I'm just bringing this up because im curious as to why quota's are even being suggested.

[Sally]

5.

Stop using the word "gender", it doesn't mean anything. Sex is a much better term as it is grounded in reality. Gender means whatever one wants it to mean, that's why the lefties love it so much.

[Vikas Nayak]

6.

The terms are almost synonymous. Gender is inclusive of the Trannies, Hermaphrodites and all sorts of weird genital configurations though.

I for one welcome Transsexuals, Hermaphrodites and whatever else you may have into the liberal party (if there are any), and salute them if they run in a seat.

[Sally]

7.

Gender is understood as the sex with which one identifies; sex is the sex you are in fact. By using the term gender a man can say he is a woman, despite having a sausage and meatballs.

[Vikas Nayak]

8.

You make that sound like its a bad thing Sally. Isn't the liberal party about individual freedom and not trying to force labels on people?

How can we call ourselves the party of individual liberty and general positive approach to personal responsibility, if we start forcing confused males to call themselves males (especially if they're pre-op).

But this just goes to my point that the entire notion of sex and gender isn't overly relevant (and it shouldn't be for good reason) to political opinions.

[Sally]

9.

Do you want the Liberal Party to be the party of fantasy land (like lefties) or reality?

[Vikas Nayak]

10.

Wouldn't reality require the acceptance that some people really don't fit into "traditional male and female" roles? I mean your gripe was that i didnt use the word "sex" to describe the assignment of male and female when the word "gender" is more ubiquitous of all assignments capable within the human structure.

Yes its a semantic argument to begin with, but its certainly NOT a fantasy to use more ubiquitously defined terms rather than rigid terms when you're presenting a general case (obviously particular cases would require less vague definitions). I think the fantasy land version would require the liberal party to assign roles to individuals based on "sex", rather than the version contingent on reality which focuses on their political opinions and not "gender".

[XW]

11.

This is an interesting article, and I agree with you on some points, especially those relating to the notion that talented women 'need' quotas.

However, you are very quick to lambast the ALP as being the progenitor of affirmative action quotas.

But a bit of research finds that the Liberal Party was in fact the first major political party in Australia to enact gender representative quotas.

Indeed, when the ALP implemented their AA reforms in the 1990s, they were running over 40 years behind the Liberals, who enforced quotas upon the party's founding.

From the Liberal Party's Victorian Division website:

"Women play a key role in the Liberal Party, and have an equal number of positions with men at all levels of the Party."

"[upon its founding] there was to be equal gender representation throughout the Liberal Party"

"...the Victorian Division's Constitution guarantees equality of representation within the Party organisation, from the branch level through to the senior executive. Each branch has an equal number of male and female delegates to State Council, as well as both a male and female vice president."

Despite this, your article does not mention the Liberal Party's quotas, which no doubt were a trailblazing concept in their day.

When making any future value judgement on affirmative action, please ensure your own party's current internal policies are a proportionate target of your scorn.

(As a non-Liberal member, I have never commented before on this forum, as I respect it as a space for conservative, centre-right and libertarian thinkers only. But today, I thought it necessary to make this point)

[Sally]

12.

Why not use the term intersex?

[Vikas Nayak]

13.

Interesting find XW, although i may need to correct you on a few things. The article was about quotas to ministerial positions, not to state council (the Liberal version of caucus where representatives from every branch meet up to debate policy).

The liberals, to this day, do not have quota's on the number of women that must be MP's. The women that got there did so on their merits.

[Vikas Nayak]

14.

because gender is a 6 letter word and intersex is a 8 letter one.

Mathematically speaking, typing gender is 25% more efficient.

Also, because intersex isnt anywhere near as colloquially used as gender

[XW]

15.

Vikas,

You're correct, and I was going to credit Lydia for the distinction she made between parliamentary quotas and representative quotas, but I forgot.

However, later in the article Lydia says the following, which seems to broaden the debate beyond her concern merely for the parliamentary quotas as suggested by Senator Troeth:

"I believe that the Liberal Party is an attractive organisation to many women because it treats females as equals, not weak incompetents who need a quota to be elected as they cannot succeed on merit alone."

[Vikas Nayak]

16.

Well, considering Lydia is Victorian, i'm sure she knows about the quota's for their state council. However ensuring women have an equal voice in the debate forum, is somewhat different from representative quota's for the number of female MP's.

As for the quote you selected, i dont exactly see how it broadens the debate to whether women having quota's in the debating circle is equivalent to quota's in the Parliamentary circles. You'd have to draw that line of inference for me, but seeing as this is a libertarian, conservative and center-right website, i'm sure in the course of debate someone will represent the view favouring the quotas.

[Old lefty]

17.

Lydia Bevege wrote "Her victorious battle against the Victorian ALP factional heavy weights to achieve pre-selection is a testament to just how much she didn`t need affirmative action to get into Parliament."

This is just wrong, factually incorrect. Julia Gillard stood for preselection 3 times and won on her fourth attempt because of a quota.

By all means rail against the Liberals doing the same but at least get your facts right. It is without argument that the only reason Gillard was able to become an MP and hence PM is through a quota.

[.]

18.

Considering her mediocre performance, your point being?

[Kieran MacGillicuddy]

19.

It seems to be a perception which comes primarily from the chardonnay socialist set and does not appear to be reflective of broader perceptions and voting trends. This is the same group who like to label Abbott as not appealing to women when the trend shows no meaningful difference between Abbott and Turnbull's popularity with women.

[get a life]

20.

well someone clearly has issues!

[Old lefty]

21.

Of course her performance as a legislator is mediocre, she's ALP. Her performance as a politician though can only be described as stellar.

As to my point. Ms Bevege said Gillard got there without quotas as part of her argument that competent women don't need quotas to gain preselection. Unfortunately for the argument, Gillard did need a quota, hence Gillard is not a good example for Ms Bevege's line of argument. Perhaps you could take a logic lesson as part of your course?

[Kieran MacGillicuddy]

22.

A very valid point, and one which Troeth makes in her article. I agree with Vikas that it is important to differentiate between MP and party quotas due to the very different nature of the role. I do however agree you that Lydia doesn't adequately make this distinction.

Though perhaps this is intentional?

I think that Lydia's arguments are equally applicable of all areas of the party and would support the scrapping of existing quotas.

(Although I note that it was smart politics by Menzies to introduce them)

[Vikas Nayak]

23.

Turnbull just looks like a typical business man.

Abbott in those budgie smugglers...well...lets just say it doesn't help him.

I am of course going on a total limb here.

Aside from that there's so many prominent women in politics that make waves who come from the liberal side of politics that i feel doesn't warrant that reputation. So yeah, i agree, no need for quota's. Liberal women dont seem to have trouble moving into seats or speaking up (even when they shoot the party in the foot...i'm clearly talking about a certain female politician that said something about australia using foreign passports in espionage missions).

[Jake the Muss]

24.

"By contrast, female Liberals around the country occupy important leadership positions and have done so without the help of affirmative action. Consider the Deputy Federal Leader, Julie Bishop,"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Great joke Lydia, very funny.

"To suggest that any of these talented women would have required affirmative action to get where they are today is frankly an insult to them."

Yes that's right, and my above commentary regarding Julie Bishop should be taken as an insult.

That the affirmative action is not institutionalised makes it no less insidious, and that insipid incompetent Western Australian woman absolutely got to Deputy Leader through affirmative action.

Either that, or the Liberal Party is hopelessly bereft of talent.

As for the article in general, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Kieran MacGillicuddy]

25.

That's just it though - the swimwear (and bike pants and running gear)doesn't seem to be hurting him. It may even be helping him.

[Angry Conservative]

26.

I think the following overview is essential viewing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhZRDoGZg00

As usual, Sir Humphrey has the last word. :-)

[John]

27.

Just telling it like it is. In what way is what I said not true?

[John Humphreys]

28.

Excellent article. Justice should be measured by the process, not the outcome. So long as we aren't bigoted in our attitudes to women, then it shouldn't matter whether we reach an arbitrary quota.

[Billy the Kidder]

29.

Yup, that sums up Gillard... a quota monkey.

Seriously, do you want a quota monkey as your surgeon... no... they why as PM?

[Steve]

30.

Great article, Lydia :) I'd like to add that the ANU Liberal Club's executive is dominated by women, all of whom are extremely talented individuals who deserve their place there. Not part of the Liberal party itself, but goes to show you'd have to be an idiot to make the argument that the right are nothing more than sexist pigs

[Janet H. Thompson]

31.

Troeth is a LIBERAL?! I'll be damned. Who'd a thunk it?

[Ralph Buttigieg]

32.

G'day,

I don't think women need quotas but I do think they need every encouragement to join and get involved. I would love to see a bunch of Australian "Mama Grizzles" types get in and stir up the boys.

ta

Ralph

[Kieran MacGillicuddy]

33.

One points which I think the article missed is that quotas effectively disenfranchise women* who would otherwise vote for a male candidate. A quota system essentially tells a woman in that situation that she is incapable of making the correct decision about how to use her vote.

*and men

[Ben]

34.

You go girlfriend. Mmm. Mmm. That’s what I’m talkin’ about sister.

[Andy Semple]

35.

Another brain explosion from Senator Troeth. First she wanted to condemn us all to Rudd’s diabolical ETS and now she supports women quotas. The best thing Senator Troeth (and that other turncoat Senator Boyce) can do is resign from the liberal party. Progressives like her belong with the ALP.

[Northerner]

36.

I am certainly female and totally against having a quota for women. Such a suggestion is patronising and insulting. Women with ability can achieve pre-selection on their own merit. That is the only way to have competent people as parliamentarians, not just someone warming a seat.

[Nona Florat]

37.

I agree with Lydia Bevege. Any suggestion that the Liberal Party adopt affirmative action is an insult to women!
I refer to a post of mine on the subject in February. Please refer to this to avoid repetition
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2010/02/what-australian-women-really-want.html
It is sad that our first woman Prime Minister is one of the stamp of Julia Gillard, whose success is due, less to Labor’s policy of quotas, than to her membership of, and active participation in, EMILY’s List (Early Money is Like Yeast), which provides financial support. http://www.emilyslist.org.au/
The goals of this organisation are ideological, not based on commitment to the common good of our great nation, which we are entitled to expect from any political candidate. There are indeed many talented Liberal women in office, of whom we may be justly proud.
The main objective of EMILY’s List is to expand and promote abortion. If a woman deserves a “choice”, she certainly deserves an informed choice. 21st Century medical science has evidence at its disposal of foetal development, through techniques of embryoscopy and ultrasound. These show remarkable development even in the very early stages of pregnancy. It is in the financial interest of abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes, to deny a pregnant woman access to this factual information, which is any patient’s right to view prior to a surgical procedure of any kind.
Likewise women of the EMILY’s List mindset are hostile to recognition of a woman’s human dignity. This is exemplified by advocating a promiscuous lifestyle to teenage girls. Remember Julia Gillard’s (as Deputy PM) ridiculous attack on Tony Abbott’s parental rights. A message of chastity before marriage is “bad for business” for abortion providers.
In America there is a Susan B. Anthony List
http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4009925/k.BE63/Home.htm
This organisation provides support for women candidates who reject a negative and outdated ideological view for women. It is not in the interest of women to fuel warfare between the sexes. Nor is it in the interest of an individual pregnant woman to fuel warfare between her and her own child, whose joint welfare is inseparable.
Contemporary women are fully capable of taking their place in professional and political life. This does not mean that family values are to be disparaged. The dignity of motherhood deserves to be recognised and upheld. There is much that can be done in the political sphere to support mothers who work at home as well as those in the workforce. The complementary role of fatherhood is likewise in need of recognition. Moreover women deserve protection from insulting degradation caused by unlimited access to pornography.
We have a problem with an ageing population, yet enviromaniacs continue to seek to impose population control, which, in Europe, is producing demographic suicide. The likely outcome is an Islamic population within 50 years. Muslims do not support so-called “reproductive rights” without reproduction.
A positive step for the Liberal Party, instead of imitating a Labor debacle, would be to establish a group similar to the Susan B. Anthony list, to assist women who would like to challenge a prevailing negative view of womanhood, and provide practical measures in the interests of women.

[Neal]

38.

Budgie smugglers ? Do I sense a touch of envy in this statement ? They,for the non-swimmers are a necessity and the days have long past since you had to cover up before leaving the water.I now leave you with the thought of our relief PM in a G string bikini.
Quotas,even the Government utilities have had quotas since they came to government, and is a prime cause of dissent at all ranks of equal pay group.

[Nona Florat]

39.

Men and women are equal, but that does not mean that they are the same.
They are clearly different, and their roles are complementary.

[Vikas Nayak]

40.

Ahhhhh....my retina's...they burn!!!!

[John]

41.

Being equal is being the same. If they are equal, why don't they compete against each other in competitive sport? It's because men are much superior physically. Of course, there are some things women are better at: cleaning, coooking, washing, raising children etc..

[Just Sayin']

42.

Good point about the ALSF President, though it is nothing new for ALSF. Past female presidents include Lorraine Van Der Ende (2002-03) and Vanessa Hose (1997-98). In 1998-99, four out of five Executive positions were held by women.

[Nona Florat]

43.

Some feminists demand to compete against men in sport -- not very sensibly, in my opinion.
When we speak about equality in the context of authentic human rights, the meaning is equality before the law, based on inalienable human dignity.
We each have individual abilities, strengths and weakness, according to talent and training. Some are superior in music, for instance, others in athletics.
There are also gender related differences. Men are superior in physical strength, pointing their role to the military and to professions that require such strength. In the family they have responsibilities as protector and chief provider. Women are superior in a caring and nurturing role, which is of value both in the home and in medical, nursing, child care and educational professions.
Human excellence/superiority is not based merely on physical strength. Would a man of prize-fighter physique make a better doctor or lawyer than a man of less-than average strength, or a woman?
In intellectual pursuits, management and other skills, persons are not equal, but it is a matter of individual talent rather than gender. Men may surpass women in cooking, for instance. Many prestigious hotels and restaurants employ a man as principal chef.
When it comes to political office, the essential qualifications are policy oriented to the common good, and competence to fulfil the role.

[Riet Rotherham]

44.

They actually prefer Sauv Blanc these days, tbh.

Great article just one thing...

"Julie, Isobel and Louise - all women"

Really? I'd never have guessed.

[Tony]

45.

I agree we should select people on merit not on colour race or creed or sex