Pretty short on decent arguments. Its all very well looking at women's wages in isolation without examining any of the reasons why. Perhaps women prefer a more balanced life style. Whilst there are many women capable of being a CEO, few choose to do this. Perhaps they value time at home with their families rather than spending their lives in meetings whilst their children grow up without knowing them.
The author talks about equality, but a quota system does not bring equality. It simply deprives more capable applicants of the job whilst less capable applicants get in ahead.
In Western Australia the increasing pay gap is due to the prevalence of men amongst the fly in fly out workers. Women tend to reject these jobs as they would rather be at home with their families. Few women desire to work in the trades either, though apprenticeships are just as available to women as men. Maybe women don't want to spent their lives toiling in the hot sun, crawling around under peoples houses in their roof spaces or delving into their toilets and drains or wielding a shovel on a hot road.
The author also fails to mention the inequality that men face in certain areas. He does not appear to be calling for a quota of men to receive custody of their children after relationship break ups. Nor does he call for a quota of women prisoners to balance out the inequality in the justice system. Nor does he call for a reduced female life expectancy to match the earlier deaths of men.
In fact I see no call for equality at all, but simply a call to give women preferential treatment in the work place. One might even think the author really feels that women are unable to compete with men on a level playing field. I don't. I just think women make different choices for good reasons.

"Why are we still struggling with gender equality?"

Because it's not true?

Because you don't know what's better for people, than people?

Because women don't have babies as a matter of gender, they have babies as a matter of sex? Because women having babies is not a "social construct"?

Because you don't know what other people's values are?

Because a policy of gender equality cannot be realised without discrimination on the ground of sex?

Because what is impossible or self-contradictory is not a desirable goal of policy, and is an abuse of power?

Because gender equality can't be made true without creating two unequal classes - those authorised to use power to force everyone to obey, and the victims of that power - thus creating an inequality worse than the original supposed problem?

Because it's an anti-human ideology?

Because other people are not your property? Because people are not objects to be manipulated by your threats to serve your ends?

Because freedom of association is an inalienable human right?

Because human relations should be based on consent, not threats of aggression?

The author has written a fluffy piece about something he claims is treated as a "fluffy issue". It doesn't really say anything, except that quotas aren't really that bad.

The basic question that needs to be answered before we discuss any of these things is just what is "gender equality". I believe I understand the meaning of "equal rights" as well as "equal opportunity", but just plain old "equality".

From my understanding this means that both genders, male and female, have equal outcomes in all aspects of life and society. That is the average "whatever" of the male gender is "equal" to the average "whatever" of the female gender.

In this topic that "whatever" seems to be either salaries or powerful board positions on companies. This is simply cherry picking factors out of thin air that the author would like to see equal. If the author truly wanted "equality" then this would count for all positive and negative factors we see differences between the genders. If women deserve equal representation on the boards of companies, do you also want to see equal numbers of women in the trades? Does the author want to see equal numbers of men staying home as primary carers, or as low paid single parents.

While you argue that increasing the role of women in high paying jobs etc. would bring a net benefit to the country, the assumption is that these women would not be taking these high paying jobs from men. This would be a fair assumption if this occurred by free choices made by companies and individuals, however the quota system means that a male with superior qualifications for a position will not be able to fill that position due to his gender. Which I understand is gender discrimination. According to you this is a bad thing, right?

While one can agree with most of what you say Conrad, we confront the practical reality, that only women can get pregnant.
Moreover, there are a significant number of cases, created in some aspects by the forever ticking biological clock, were women stop using contraception, get pregnant, take the six months maternity leave, and simply not return, when it's used up?
A compelling reason for this, may well be the cost of child care, when measured against cost, and tax liabilities, v wages?
Many families deciding that one parent, usually the lower paid, ought to stay at home.
Part of the problem here is the almost routine way society, quite grossly undervalues, the work of stay at home mums, and raising children.
Much of the difficulties experienced by stay at home mums, ho'd rather return to their former careers, is the sheer cost of health care, most of which could be addressed, by simply rerouting the current govts proposed maternity leave budget, to childcare, which would assist many more mothers to return to work; rather than be forced to stay at home, by basic economic realities.
Nor are very many assisted by the complexities of tax part A or B!
A far better scheme all round for all current or intending parents/families, would be a simple raising of the tax threshold, to say 50,000, which ought to assist those who wish to return to their former occupations. Particularly, where the base salary is below that number?
As for equality, there ought to be a legislated outcome, that simply compels, a equal pay outcome for equal work!
A removal of the real cost/benefit barriers that prevent women returning to work, would also assist!?
Rhrosty.

The Abbott government needs to ensure that the money intended for the needy actually reaches them. It strikes me that there is an ever growing horde of professionals, both real and claimed, NGOs and government Qangos and agencies getting in between and soaking up the available allocations so that only a trickle is evident at the sharp end.

There are professionals and bureaucrats who have ridden the gender gravy train for their whole working lives. It is shattering that there are more young intending to do the same and they will probably succeed. Come on Abbott government, do something about it! Good Lord, there are so many 'must-do' priorities starved for money.

I don't think gender equality will ever be achievable, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the definition keeps being redefined.

Secondly it only ever concentrates on the real and imaginary disadvantages experienced by only one gender.

Thirdly, as previously mentioned, many people make a good living out of promoting "Gender inequality" so why would they ever want it to be resolved.