I write in response to an article published in Mamamia last week entitled “Pushy. Irrational. Emotional. This is how the Liberal Party dismisses its women.”
In the article in which the author’s name was not disclosed, Ms Anonymous, from New South Wales, argues that “…although women make up nearly half of the Liberal Party, they aren’t running for parliament. And when they do? Statistics show it is generally for the marginal seats that much of the time, they lose.”
Perhaps the author missed the success at the 2013 Federal election of four new female MPs from NSW – Lucy Wicks, Fiona Scott, Karen McNamara and Ann Sudmalis. Each contested marginal or notionally marginal seats, ran gutsy and determined campaigns, and won.
I, too, was elected in 2013 as the Member for Corangamite after contesting the most marginal seat in the country.
My election was aided, in no small part, by the Liberal Party’s reforms in Victoria which gives each local member of the party an equal say in who is chosen to run for parliament – in both the House of Representatives and Victoria’s Legislative Assembly.
That each person has an equal vote makes it extremely difficult for the more influential party members to lock up the numbers, so to speak. This has empowered party members at the grassroots and reinvigorated the party organisation. And, might I humbly say, the reforms which were introduced in 2009 have produced some very good members of parliament.
Contrast this to the furor which has erupted in the Labor Party over archaic preselection practices which place so much power in the hands of so few.
Top Comments
Ms Henderson as a former senior ABC journalist should know better. The ALP's Senate preselection process works very similarly to the Liberals' Senate preselection process (which sees people like Cory Bernardi, Eric Abetz and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells take their place on the red leather). Labor's House of Reps preselections, in states like Tasmania, give electorate party members equal voting rights to that of the annual conference delegates—candidates are chosen by a mix of delegates and rank-and-file, not 'faceless men' (such a boring, meaningless term).
What Ms Henderson conveniently brushes over is Mr Abbott's failure to promote the Coalition's female MPs into senior positions. One Cabinet minister is the best he could manage (and Ms Bishop is out of the country half the year) in a Cabinet that includes Warren Truss, Barnaby Joyce and Christopher Pyne. Abbott Cabinet meetings must resemble something out of the 1930s, except for the lack of cigarette smoke (cigars are strictly outdoor pursuits these days).
There is still a way to go in Labor before women achieve the equality they deserve and are entitled to, but the party is on the right track and is fundamentally committed to the goals. Women in Labor are regarded without question as equals in every respect, not begrudgingly, not with reservation, but absolutely. And that is the real difference, and I think Sarah Henderson knows it.
I am the author of the article this was written in response to.
I refuse to justify the gender issues within the Liberal party by comparing it to other organizations. You'll find in my article I drew no comparisons to the ALP.
These issues should be addressed because the liberal party is capable of leading the way, not ignored because other organizations are worse.
The structural makeup in the NSW Liberal party is entirely different to the examples of the other states that the author attempts to compare it to. We have no plebiscite system and very few people are entitled to participate in the preselection process.
I agree with her support for this system change in NSW.
I also did not criticize the Abbott government so much as the culture of the party at a grassroots level.
Therefore until we have a similar plebiscite structure in NSW, or the author relocates from her seat in Victoria to experience the grassroots Liberal party of NSW, I think my arguments still stand.
Respect for speaking up.