This article was originally published in The Daily Telegraph on or about 13 May 2025 and was written by the author in their capacity as a contributor for that publication.
It has been republished on the IPA website with permission. The views expressed are those of the author alone.
In the post-mortem of the Liberals’ 2025 federal election defeat, calls for gender quotas have once again taken centre stage as a panacea to the party’s woes.
However, mandatory female representation is profoundly illiberal in principle and demeaning to women for three key reasons. It suggests that women will only vote for women and that women are not concerned about policy, and it implies that women in parliament have the role because of their gender.
Former TV reporter, political staffer and founder of Hilma’s Network (which focuses on recruiting moderate women to the Liberal Party) Charlotte Mortlock has called for state, federal and structural gender quotas as a bare minimum.
Further, Mortlock claimed the Liberal Party would be “morons” to elect two men to the party’s leadership and such an outcome would be “insulting” to women.
Mortlock’s argument for quotas relies on the assumption that gender is a driving priority for women at the voting booth.
This philosophical position stems from theories that claim an individual’s political position will be basically determined by characteristics such as their class, race or gender. Implicit in this thinking is the assumption that most human interaction in society is underpinned by oppressive power structures based on group identities.
It leads to a view of the world that is inherently tribal and divisive. It pits men against women, rich against poor, and black against white.
Practically, it results in affirmative action policies such as quotas, where some people are denied various positions or roles because of their gender or race.
A quota disadvantaging a man is just as bad as historical policies that disadvantaged women. While some may argue this is necessary to address past wrongs, it ultimately amounts to a rejection of the entire gender equality movement.
Those concerned about toxic masculinity must consider the negative downstream impact of such a policy on men’s attitudes towards women.
Quotas result in a situation where a person’s gender will make or break their career. It is a zero-sum game that will advantage women at the expense of men. Such a policy will only turn men against women in the workforce.
Moreover, the argument for quotas in the Liberal Party relies upon the claim that women will vote for women while men will vote for policies.
This is demeaning for female voters and female candidates. It suggests that women will vote based on superficial factors such as the gender of the candidate, and that female elected representatives are in parliament for this reason alone.
Significantly, however, the 2022 Australian Election Study revealed young women were among those most likely to identify the cost of living as their primary concern.
Mortlock argues that the Liberal Party needs quotas “at a minimum”. But what the Liberals need, at a minimum, is political courage – to articulate a clear vision fit for the 21st century that anyone can vote for, regardless of their age, race or gender.
A party that once stood for enterprise, freedom and family now finds itself trapped in a no-man’s land.
Until the Liberals resolve this identity crisis and adopt policies that distinguish themselves from the Labor Party and engage the centre-right of Australian politics, they will remain rudderless.
The base of the Liberal Party is shifting. In 2001 a majority of women voted for the Liberals, whereas today men are more likely to vote Liberal. If this is where the support is, the party must adapt.
That does not mean abandoning female voters, but it does mean rethinking our assumptions about who the message is for and what conservative values look like today.
If the Liberals craft a platform that addresses the cost of living, housing – affordability, and important cultural issues, including the debate about quotas, they will have broad appeal across the gender divide.
The party already has targets, talent pipelines and preselection training for women, and it should continue to fund and promote these avenues to elected office.
If the Liberals genuinely want to attract and elevate more capable women – and they should – then that is the place to start.
But regulating outcomes is lazy policy at best, and illiberal at worst.
This is why so many women (particularly on the centre-right) oppose quotas.
There were many red flags in the Liberal Party’s 2025 campaign. But – female representation was not the most urgent among them.
Until the Liberal Party fixes its policies, which means identifying and championing our core values, and explains how these can address the real concerns of mainstream Australia, it will not matter who we put on the posters.
