This week's announcement of the Coalition's frontbench has provoked protest at the paucity of women. Julie Bishop, the first ever female Foreign Minister, is the only woman in Cabinet.
Outgoing Liberals such as Queensland senator Sue Boyce and member for Pearce Judi Moylan have expressed their displeasure at the outcome, citing cultural and structural problems within the Liberal Party. Others, such as former Howard minister Amanda Vanstone, believe merit should be the sole determinant.
But arguments about merit are problematic for two reasons. First, many factors unrelated to merit play a role in determining the make-up of government frontbenches. Second, it asks people to believe that women in the Liberal Party aren't deserving of these positions and that the men are.
The Parliamentary Secretary ranks are an example. Regarded as the 'training ground' for future ministers, becoming a Parliamentary Secretary is recognition of talent. It is also an opportunity to prove oneself and have greater influence on policy matters. It beggars belief that only one woman, who was demoted, is deemed appropriate to fill the position.
It is hard to believe anybody would consciously discriminate against women in favour of men. Yet, women remain under-represented at the highest levels of politics and business.
Quotas, both internal and statutory, are often posited as a way to ameliorate this problem. They are not only illiberal, but fail to address the cultural reasons why ambitious women find climbing the ladder more difficult than their male counterparts.
Dr Jennifer Whelan, writing in the Committee for Economic Development of Australia's gender gap report, describes unconscious bias, how 'judgements about who is more capable… about who "fits" better, about who is more hireable' work against women. She also cites the role of stereotypical gendered personality traits as affecting how women are perceived in the workplace.
Quotas, of course, do nothing to fix the underlying causes of under-representation of women in leadership roles. Quotas do not result in merit being recognised, but instead turn women's abilities into a numbers game – they do not prompt examination of unconscious bias.
A better and far more liberal approach is the further development of networking opportunities and mentoring programs for women within professional associations, workplaces and political parties. For individual organisations to set their own targets for women, as Westpac has successfully done, is also a potential solution. Merit focused targets prioritise the recruitment and development of talented women but don't mandate the selection of women just because they are female (as quotas do).
Tony Abbott has said, in response to the criticism of his new frontbench, capable women would be 'knocking on the door.' Yet the fact that only one woman is in the Cabinet and only six women out of 42 are on the frontbench team should be cause for serious reflection for the new government.
Trisha Jha is a Researcher at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Of frontbenches, quotas and merit
Of frontbenches, quotas and merit
Outgoing Liberals such as Queensland senator Sue Boyce and member for Pearce Judi Moylan have expressed their displeasure at the outcome, citing cultural and structural problems within the Liberal Party. Others, such as former Howard minister Amanda Vanstone, believe merit should be the sole determinant.
But arguments about merit are problematic for two reasons. First, many factors unrelated to merit play a role in determining the make-up of government frontbenches. Second, it asks people to believe that women in the Liberal Party aren't deserving of these positions and that the men are.
The Parliamentary Secretary ranks are an example. Regarded as the 'training ground' for future ministers, becoming a Parliamentary Secretary is recognition of talent. It is also an opportunity to prove oneself and have greater influence on policy matters. It beggars belief that only one woman, who was demoted, is deemed appropriate to fill the position.
It is hard to believe anybody would consciously discriminate against women in favour of men. Yet, women remain under-represented at the highest levels of politics and business.
Quotas, both internal and statutory, are often posited as a way to ameliorate this problem. They are not only illiberal, but fail to address the cultural reasons why ambitious women find climbing the ladder more difficult than their male counterparts.
Dr Jennifer Whelan, writing in the Committee for Economic Development of Australia's gender gap report, describes unconscious bias, how 'judgements about who is more capable… about who "fits" better, about who is more hireable' work against women. She also cites the role of stereotypical gendered personality traits as affecting how women are perceived in the workplace.
Quotas, of course, do nothing to fix the underlying causes of under-representation of women in leadership roles. Quotas do not result in merit being recognised, but instead turn women's abilities into a numbers game – they do not prompt examination of unconscious bias.
A better and far more liberal approach is the further development of networking opportunities and mentoring programs for women within professional associations, workplaces and political parties. For individual organisations to set their own targets for women, as Westpac has successfully done, is also a potential solution. Merit focused targets prioritise the recruitment and development of talented women but don't mandate the selection of women just because they are female (as quotas do).
Tony Abbott has said, in response to the criticism of his new frontbench, capable women would be 'knocking on the door.' Yet the fact that only one woman is in the Cabinet and only six women out of 42 are on the frontbench team should be cause for serious reflection for the new government.
Trisha Jha is a Researcher at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: