The issue goes deeper than what Mary has described about the gender imbalance amongst MPs. Although a look at raw numbers for their staff suggests that there is a majority of females this is misleading. Electorate office staff comprises many more females than males and have traditionally been lower paid (that has changed recently) and are seen by many as in less responsible positions (incorrectly so in my view).

When we look at ministerial staff and the 21% proportion allocated to the Opposition, we have to consider the portfolio (and its perceived ‘importance’ is as you describe for the MPs) and then the specific levels and roles.

Here the position is little better, if at all, to the gender imbalance of MPs. Worse in some respects as, in the Opposition at least (where I can draw on my own experience), there is greater potential and actual nepotism based on factional or tribal alliances - to the detriment of talent and capability. A little perversely perhaps, the result is that the female advisers are mostly chosen for superior skills and abilities, while too many of the male advisers would not get their position (or at that level) on merit alone.

My experience over more than 5 years is that the level of capability, experience and skills of the female advisers is measurably and significantly better than their male counterparts, but they are generally paid less, in the ‘softer’ portfolios and have to fight much harder to be heard. The reasons need a longer and more considered essay, but the what I outlined above reinforces this research.

We need to reinvigorate our efforts to ensure that the 52% female majority of our population gets 50% of our political representatives - Australia will remain the poorer in so many ways until we do.

SteveB,

the only way at present to get a 50% representation of women into politics is to rig the electoral system.

Politicans are voted in or out by the members to the electorate, the members of the electorate last time I looked also included female voters.

I suppose we could always bring back conscription and press the female gender into service as a politican.

There should be no quotas on getting women into anything. To achieve real change takes generations - trying to push things along faster just results in the reverse happening: women get in based on quotas, not skills. The idea is to achieve promotion on merit, not to discriminate against men (by excluding them from quotas). Yes, perhaps this means that women will need to put up with some more inequality for the time being. But in the longer term, those in charge will come to realise that they themselves are in a better position for employing the most talented person, no matter what their gender (or race for that matter). And if the one in charge is too dumb to realise this..... buggered if I want to work for that person anyway!!

The gender mix of parliament should only be determined by

The preferences of the electorate to choose who will represent them, based on the merit of the individuals promoting themselves for election, regardless of their gender.

All the rest is bunkum, the delusions and the petty jealousy which emanates from spiteful and retarded thinking and which will ultimately produce the stunted and mediocre outcomes associated with all affirmative action strategies.

For myself, I voted for Margaret Thatcher and thought she had balls of steel when it came to dealing with Labour Unions and the USSR and of course the Argentinians. It is a pity more men and women are not more like her.

She is famously quoted for saying

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”

She is also credited with

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won. “

That “rights” might have been achieved does not imply that all women are sufficiently resourceful or skilled to exercise them, hence fewer of them will stand for parliament and fewer will be elected.

Dearest Margaret did not see men as different to women, she saw only people, regardless of gender. When more of us view the world with Margaret’s wisdom (her gender, political and economic values), then we will all be better off.

One of her best quotes is pertinent here it is

“The woman's mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities.”

A “human” world – not a “feminised” one.

If women don't run for office they cannot be judged on their merit nor their skills, nor their personal charisma and all the other little attributes the public will "see" while making their decision who will best represent them. Lets not manufacture victims that didn't even show up to be counted. Nicolas Sarkozy was elected by a noticeable majority, including the female vote. Not Segolene Royal. Did women let down their side? And what of the men who voted for Segolene Royal? Damn turncoats.
The only place for sex in politics is in chambers with the whip. :-)
Snap. Ohhh! Segoleeeene

The fight for women's rights may largely be won, but the fight for women's equality has a long way to go.

The fight for women's rights was largely in the public sphere. The struggle for equality goes on in the private sphere as well. We still do 85% of the housework - no matter what hours we work outside the home. It is still expected that childcare falls largely to the woman - both in terms of caring for children at home, and in paying for childcare if we want to go back to work. Little wonder increasing numbers of middle class women are chosing not to return to work - why would they want to, when they have to work the "second shift" as well?

The problem is more complex than quotas - and FAR more complex than the simplistic suggestion that the reason why we don't have more women in parliament is because women have chosen not to "take up" our rights.

It's naive to suggest that in the long run "people those in charge will come to realise that they themselves are in a better position for employing the most talented person". If we don't find ways to change the culture that makes it extremely difficult for women to hold a top job and have a family - as acknowledged recently by Julia Gillard - we are never going to have a proportionate representation in politics, no matter how talented "people in charge" recognise we are.