Under this model, State Divisions would be given a target of 50% female candidates in winnable seats (which could include seats held by Labor or Independents under a certain margin, or where there is an incumbent member has announced their retirement).

It would then be up to the State Divisions how to achieve this.

If after a certain number of preselections (say half, or two thirds of those due to take place) any state was clearly not on track to achieve their target, the Federal Executive would have the ability to intervene to select a female candidate in any of the remaining divisions, with a clear majority (e.g. two thirds) vote.

This option could be enacted in tandem with another option (say, option 3 or 4).

Or it could be a standalone measure, which acts as an incentive / pressure for preselectors to encourage and seriously consider outstanding women.

Arguments for

This option would put the first responsibility for identifying and encouraging outstanding women on State Divisions and their local preselections.

The Federal Executive has already tried targets, which haven’t been met. This makes targets enforceable – ‘targets with teeth’.

Federal Executive intervention may not be required and could only be enacted if the target was clearly not on track to be met.

The overhanging prospect (“threat”) of Federal Executive intervention would create pressure and impetus for State Divisions and local preselectors to encourage and select more women.

The reform would not apply to electorates held by existing Liberal members, so would not create instability by upending the existing parliamentary team. It focuses on ensuring a gender balance among new representatives, so that the Party can make continued progress.

By requiring a clear majority of Federal Executive, it would ensure clear consensus was required around the selection of an outstanding female candidate.

Labor’s selection of candidates through its National Executive for both general elections and by-elections has been done smoothly and successfully for some time, with minimal internal rancour.

Arguments Against

It could lead to arguments about the order of preselections in a state, or which electorates should be subject to intervention.

If a state is missing its target, it could mean Federal intervention, which is never straightforward.

It doesn’t guarantee that a state would achieve 50 percent female candidates in winnable seats. It gives Federal Executive the option of intervening if a state is missing its target, but no guarantee it could or would do so to redress the imbalance.