Parrot,

You keep repeating the same line that the government just borrowed $800m (to service the Labor debt). What is the point your are trying to make? All of this is because of Labor policies and laws passed, and has was even before the new PM and cabinet were sworn in.

Much as most Australians would love to see the coalition sweep aside all Labor's waste and incompetence simply by turning up, it takes months or years to get rid of bad policy, legislation, bloated and pointless bureaucracy, and probably decades to repay the record debt labor has racked up.

'Is the Liberal party really so berefit of good female pollies? Surely not.'

Perhaps it is. Conservative lasses would be more likely looking for a career as a doctor's wife, rather than running for office.

The whole idea of equality in this area has many problems.

For a start, where is the motivation for very smart women to spend their time working 80 hour weeks (with a bunch of blokes in blue ties) and not seeing their kids. This goes against most women's life-long goals and dare I say it maternal instincts. Sure, society sets a lot of gender norms, but that is the lay of the land, not Mr Rabbit's fault.

Labor has the advantage of lefty women being way more likely. Your feminists, your unionists are much more likely that a toff conservative chick to have any motivation to get involved in politics.

A smart woman would marry well so she could take 5 years off until the kids are at school and then be a lady that lunches thereafter. I would argue that's a better lifestyle than the high powered hubby.

So the first problem is smart women being smart.

The second problem is simple maths. Say 10 women and 90 men want a career in politics. It's pretty sexist to think a front bench of 10 women and 10 men would represent the best talent. That makes the bottom 10% female candidate better than the top 13% male candidate.

In the end the opportunities for gaining more females in parliament ( a worthy cause I agree with BTW) are

1. Empty nest women:

- Difficult when women start having families in their late 30s these days, so that would rule out most women under 50, and likely mean parachuting women in over men who had been doing the hard graft in dubious factional dealings and handling those brown paper bags full of cash for 20 years.

2. Single women under 30:

- Unlikely as most men and women at that age are into having fun, but I reckon a good idea as we need more Yoof in parliament.

3. Women with a house husband:

- This idea relies on a change in attitude in women more so than men really. For a start, there is the dating game where women chase guys richer (or in better jobs) than themselves, which stacks the cards against sacrificing the higher male partner's salary when kids come. Secondly many many women feel after having gone through pregnancy and birth they would like to stay home with those kids and would only let their partner stay home over their dead body.

4. Women who hate children. aka Juliar the Barren. Or Baron Julia. With the patently gay husband.

5. Lesbian women.

Basically you'd have to change the whole political game and make it all a 9AM-3PM deal, or change women's desire to partner up, and make women turned on by men in frilly aprons.

If none of that can change, what percentage could we really expect in government without affirmative action and reducing the talent pool based on promoting one gender over another when there is vastly less women interested in the job?

Anyone? I guestimate about 20% consistently, 30-35 with a lot of effort and the continual chipping away at gender roles. Who knows, the lazy gen-y metro-sexuals these days might be well suited to changing parliament to suit their lifestyle, but they seem more 'misogynistic' than Mr Rabbit with their 'ironic' sexism.

I am wondering how many women regret on their death bed that they had not pursued Jim Hacker's job and instead wasted time watching their child's first steps and enjoying all of that time with family and friends.

What is a life worth living? It is interesting that the self-styled 'Progressives' do not trust people to make their own decisions and as per usual they constantly know what is best for others.

It is highly amusing too that anyone might believe that older women might take up politics. What, at the very time when they are beginning to experience some real pay-off for the times they invested in their own children?

It is not society that moulds women. Women mould society. They have opportunity and choice and they are exercising it already.

This is just more of the unsuccessful gender war waged by Gillard and the Handbag hit Squad that was so unsuccessful that cost Gillard her job. Labor surveys then and now show how necessary it was for Labor to dump Gillard.

A 50/50 gender split is not necessary (and is meaningless) but one would have thought there would have been even just one other woman, if not two, that would have fit the bill for Cabinet. My theory is that most women interested in politics tend to go for Labor or the Greens given their natural nurturing tendencies. :p

Think of Tony Abbott's dilemma. First there would have been many promises and favours to be honoured within the party, then the NATS would need a token quota to make sure they don't get too out of sorts (it is a minority government afterall.

At least Bronwyn Bishop got a go at Speaker, but I hope she proves more competent and even-handed than former Howard government Speaker, David Hawker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hawker. Even Peter Slipper (unsuited as he was for other reasons) proved more fair and deliberate as Speaker.

pelican, "My theory is that most women interested in politics tend to go for Labor or the Greens given their natural nurturing tendencies"

Tongue planted firmly in your cheek for that one. LOL

Decades of positive affirmative action in the federal public service have not seen what a feminist would call adequate representation of women in the Senior Executive Service.

In fact, any woman who average intelligence and the ambition is practically guaranteed a senior management job after being given the inside running to training and placements - which pay extra money of course.

But still the women churn through the jobs.

It has to be accepted that it is not lack of opportunity nor any other factor outside of the individuals concerned that is at work.

It simply does not suit the agenda of those who derive their income from riding the women's bandwagon to accept that. Money talks.

Women have opportunity and they are making their own choices. So be it.