Linda Reynolds concedes 'women have turned away from our party'
Outgoing WA Senator Linda Reynolds has identified the Liberal Party's gender imbalance as a long-term issue, throwing her support behind Deputy Leader Sussan Ley to lead the party.
Senator Reynolds said she is 'favourably disposed' towards Sussan Ley taking the reins of the Liberal Party, as believes the opposition's spokesperson for women would be a 'healing and receptive leader'.
'I'll have a look to see who does put their hand up, but I would certainly like to see a woman up,' she said.
In the same interview with ABC Radio Perth, Senator Reynolds agreed with a text from a listener, who described the party as an 'ocean of males'.
'It's one of the issues I have been fighting for, for a very long time in the Liberal Party,' she said.
'Ten years ago I was part of a review into gender … and we recommended targets and how to get there without quotas.'
'That's been the Liberal Party policy for 10 years, but it's just sat on a shelf.'
The retiring senator said the party had to 'have the hard conversations' about its gender imbalance, 'but also a broader diversity'.
In the wake of the disastrous election result for the party, and a campaign Senator Reynolds described as a 'comprehensive failure', she pinpointed diminishing support from women as a fundamental factor contributing to their loss.
'Until 2001, the majority of Australian women voted for the Liberal Party, and that seems almost inconceivable now,' she said.
'So we have to understand why women have turned away from our party and change.'
Later in the interview, she said she believes the values of the party remain relevant, but that leaders have lost focus of them, and they have not been communicated clearly or effectively.
'We need to find a new way to communicate that. But to do that, we've got to be united,' she said.
'People are just not relating to us... we really do have a lot of work to do.'
Senator Reynolds did not recontest her seat at the federal election, and her term expires at the beginning of next month.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
38 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
‘Needs to be removed': Sustainability education linked to climate anxiety
Institute of Public Affairs Brianna McKee says sustainability must be removed from the Australian schooling curriculum to reduce climate anxiety. 'Children are at a particular stage of psychological development where they think about things in very concrete or literal terms,' Ms McKee told Sky News host Rowan Dean. 'So, when they hear phrases like 'climate action now' or 'sea levels are rising', they interpret that literally, and that causes anxiety. 'The first step towards addressing this is to take sustainability out of the curriculum. 'It needs to be removed.'
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
‘Progressive patriot' prime minister faces his call to arms
'In today's Australia, the new default should be that patriotism is a love of country that is democratic and egalitarian. It is something that includes those of different races and backgrounds,' he wrote in this masthead a couple of weeks ago. 'With his political authority unquestioned, Albanese has an opportunity to craft a nation-building agenda. The significance is more than just national. At the moment, parties of the centre-left are struggling to find compelling alternatives to Trumpist populism.' Albanese's defiance of America doesn't come out of nowhere. It rings a Labor bell. It resonates with the decision by Labor's celebrated wartime leader, John Curtin, to defy Australia's great and powerful friend of his time, Britain. 'I'm conscious about the leadership of John Curtin, choosing to stand up to Winston Churchill and say, 'No, I'm bringing the Australian troops home to defend our own continent, we're not going to just let it go',' Albanese said last year as he prepared to walk the Kokoda Track, where Australia and Papua New Guinea halted Imperial Japan's southward march of conquest in World War II. Defiance of allies is one thing. Defeat of the enemy is another. In a moment of truth-telling, the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral David Johnston, this week said that Australia now had to plan to wage war from its own continental territory rather than preparing for war in far-off locations. 'We are having to reconsider Australia as a homeland from which we will conduct combat operations,' Johnston told a conference held by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'That is a very different way – almost since the Second World War – of how we think of national resilience and preparedness. We may need to operate and conduct combat operations from this country.' He didn't spell it out, but he's evidently contemplating the possibility that China will cut off Australia's seaborne supply routes, either because it's waging war in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea, or because it's seeking to coerce Australia. 'The chief of the defence force is speaking truth,' says Professor Peter Dean, co-author of the government's Defence Strategic Review, now at the US Studies Centre at Sydney University. 'There's a line in the Defence Strategic Review that most people overlook – it talks about 'the defence of Australia against potential threats arising from major power competition, including the prospect of conflict'. And there's only one major power posing a threat in our region.' History accelerates week by week. Trump, chaos factory, wantonly discards America's unique sources of power and abuses its allies. China's Xi Jinping and Russia's Vladimir Putin are emboldened, seeing America's credibility crumbling. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, alarmed at the rising risks, this week declared a campaign to make Britain 'battle ready' to 'face down Russian aggression'. Loading Starmer plans to enlarge the army, commission up to a dozen new nuclear-powered submarines jointly built with Australia under AUKUS, build six new munitions factories, manufacture 7000 long-range weapons, renew the nuclear warheads on Britain's strategic missiles, and put new emphasis on drones and cyberwar as war evolves daily on the battlefields of Ukraine. Starmer intends to increase defence outlays to the equivalent of 2.5 per cent of GDP with an eventual target of 3 per cent. Ukraine's impressive drone strike on Russia's bombers this week knocked out a third of Moscow's force, with AI guiding the drones to their targets. The Australian retired major-general Mick Ryan observes that Ukraine and Russia are upgrading and adapting drone warfare weekly. 'The Australian government has worked hard to ignore these hard-earned lessons and these cheaper military solutions,' he wrote scathingly in this masthead this week, 'while building a dense bureaucracy in Canberra that innovative drone-makers in Australia cannot penetrate in any reasonable amount of time.' At the same time, the FBI charged two Chinese researchers with attempting to smuggle a toxic fungus into the US. It's banned because it can cause mass destruction of crops. A potential bioweapon, in other words. What would John Curtin do today? 'Curtin, like Albanese, was from the left of the Labor Party,' says Dean. 'He was not an internationalist, he was very domestic focused.' Indeed, he was an avowed Marxist who believed that capitalism was in its late phase and bound to fail, leading to world peace. He abandoned his idealism when confronted by the reality of World War II. 'He realised that a leader has to lead for his times. He had to bend his interests from the domestic sphere to the international.' Curtin famously wrote that, after Britain's 'impregnable fortress' of Singapore fell to the Japanese in just a few days, Australia looked to America as its great and powerful friend. 'Albanese can't repeat that,' observes Dean, 'because there's no one else to turn to.' 'A modern John Curtin,' says the head of the National Security College at ANU, Rory Medcalf, 'would take account of the strategic risk facing the unique multicultural democratic experiment of Australia. He'd unite the community and bring the trade unions, industry, the states and territories together in a national effort. 'It's certainly not about beating the drums of war, but we do need a much more open conversation about national preparedness. Australia might be directly involved in war, but, even if we aren't, we will be affected indirectly [by war to our north] because of risks to our fuel security, risks to the normal functioning of the economy and risks to the cohesion of our society. Is there scope to use national cabinet' – which includes the states and territories – 'to talk about these issues?' And the defence budget? Albanese is dismissive of calls to peg spending by set percentages of GDP. Apply that to any other area of the budget and you'd be laughed out of the room. The prime minister prefers to decide on capability that's needed, then to fund it accordingly. How big a gun do you need, then find money to pay for it. Medcalf endorses this approach of deciding capability before funding, but says that risk should come before both. 'And if you look at risk first, it will push spending well above 2 per cent of GDP and much closer to 3 or 4 per cent.' Regardless of what the Americans say or do. Do they turn out to be dependable but demanding? Or uselessly absent? 'Australia will need to spend more either way,' says Medcalf. 'The only future where we don't need to increase our security investment is one where we accept greatly reduced sovereignty in a China-dominated region.'
The Advertiser
7 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Biosecurity not competition a meaty issue in beef talks
Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence.
