When the party machine wouldn't listen, Sussan Ley paid attention, to me
Why, in 2025, do women still contend with the unspoken expectation that it's their job to fix the mess, but not to challenge or change the structures that created the mess in the first place? Why was Julia Gillard's leadership, unfairly in my view, framed in this way too? Even when she called it out, including the entrenched discrimination she faced as a woman in leadership, she couldn't change it – her Labor colleagues dumped her before she had the chance. Granted, Sussan isn't Julia – she is the leader of the opposition, not the prime minister, for a start. And the Liberals are not the Labor Party. Their leadership roles are 15 years apart.
In that time, we've witnessed new AI technology, seen the rise of social media and the introduction of same-sex marriage. Change happens at lightning speed now. It feels like a century of change in just 15 years.
In this context, Sussan Ley can now do what other leaders may not dare to do with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. She is now well placed to listen to our community and redefine the party before the shadowy powerbrokers carve up power behind the scenes.
When power in government is what delivers you leadership, there is every reason to work with, not against it. The price is high: it defines you before you can redefine it. But the Liberals are not in power. We've suffered the worst result in our political history, and everything is fracturing. Including, this week, the Coalition.
The party needs to change. Since 2010, our party has lost more primary votes every election. Women have now deserted us in droves. Slowly at first, until the past two elections, where the effect was a tsunami. And why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't we, I should say?
Loading
Women across Australia are crying out for leadership that changes old, tired and outdated ways of thinking and doing for the better. In 2021, the historic March 4 Justice around Parliament House even demanded we do so.
In 2025, and over the course of this next term of parliament, Ley has a unique opportunity to lead as a change agent by listening to the community first, even if that means challenging some of our old ways, policies and even factional power structures.
Some say she's already begun that task, by standing up to unreasonable demands around shadow cabinet solidarity by the Nationals. Ley started long before this week, and I believe her proven ability to listen, reflect and speak uncomfortable truth to established power can, and will, take her all the way to the Lodge.
That is the sort of leadership that an increasingly cynical electorate, tired of the old cookie-cutter approach, is looking for. Sussan has done this before. I believe she will do it again. Her ability to listen first to our community, and to speak up when others won't, may well be the making, not the breaking, of the Liberal Party. Some cynical types may say: that's a job for a woman. I would say it's a job perfect for Sussan Ley.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
34 minutes ago
- ABC News
Anthony Albanese's diplomatic doctrine on display as Australia sanctions Israeli ministers
Anthony Albanese is more a creature of the Labor caucus than the world stage. But as he enters his second term as prime minister, there are clear signs that, three years in, he's finding his feet. In his private moments, he'll confess the extent to which his origins in the Labor movement have shaped his diplomacy doctrine. At its core, it's about quietly building relationships, finding consensus on issues and when it's time to speak out, doing so alongside like-minded allies. The overnight sanctioning of two Israeli ministers offers yet another example of his approach in action. Standing alongside the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, Australia issued sanctions against two of the most controversial members of Israel's government, Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong described the men as the "most extreme proponents of the unlawful and violent Israeli settlement enterprise" in the West Bank. She said they had ignored international calls and "incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights". They now face travel bans and having assets frozen, but it's unlikely Australia's involvement will have any effect beyond sending a clear signal to Israel. A fortnight ago, a snarky Albanese seemed annoyed when asked if Australia was considering sanctions against Israel. "Well, what are the sanctions you're suggesting," he shot back at the journalist. The question came in the wake of his dumped cabinet minister Ed Husic urging Australia to follow the likes of the UK, France and Canada in looking to sanction Israel for blocking humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. Albanese initially sought to dismiss the question, saying Australia didn't provide military assets to Israel or the region. When pressed, he made clear he was focused on substance over rhetoric. What we've since learned is that for months, moves have been afoot behind the scenes to build a coalition. Government sources see Norway as an important voice in the coalition, given its history with the Oslo Accords. They also think it's significant that all members bar one in the Five Eyes security alliance are party to the coalition. Mind you, there's nothing small about the missing Five Eyes country, the United States, though Albanese and Wong have both said America's criticism of the sanctions was predictable. Since becoming prime minister, Albanese has put stock in building relationships with leaders behind closed doors. He sees attending summits and meetings of world leaders as a way to forge relationships, and compares it to his early days in the Labor movement, having to forge consensus with peers. Each time he has sought to wade into the Middle East conflict, he's been eager to do so alongside allies, namely Canada and New Zealand. Noticeably, he decided against joining with the UK, France and Canada last month. At the time, Albanese defended it by saying Australia wasn't a member of the G7. Today, the government was keen to note two of the G7 nations were in the coalition with Australia sanctioning Israel. Australia understands it lacks clout in the Middle East, especially to take actions unilaterally. But in taking a stand and issuing sanctions, even if the Australian side is likely to have very little real impact, it is designed to send a signal about how Australia sees the situation in the Middle East. "This action is the result of many months of effort and coordination, and together, these countries are sending a message: you have ignored the international community, and we do not tolerate it," Wong said. It's also aimed at sending a signal to Labor supporters, who have been disenfranchised by Australia's response to the conflict in Gaza. Opposition Foreign Affairs Minister Michaelia Cash said the Coalition was concerned the government was targeting the Israeli government instead of Hamas and wanted to know how the sanctions would contribute to the return of hostages and lasting peace in the Middle East. Liberal frontbencher Andrew Bragg went further and said the government "made a mistake" by improperly using "Magnitsky-style" sanctions on a democratically elected government. Speaking to reporters, Wong said voters had made clear at the federal election that they wanted a cohesive community, where differences of opinion were dealt with by respectful debate. She again repeated Hamas had no future in an independent Palestinian state. The Israel-Gaza conflict has brought with it at times vitriolic domestic political debates, antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks and a fracturing of social cohesion. Wong's statement announcing the sanctions makes clear that it's a response to actions in the West Bank but notes "this cannot be seen in isolation from the catastrophe in Gaza". Even before Hamas's October 7 terror attacks, she had already been reshaping government policy on the Middle East. In August 2023, Wong announced the federal government would re-adopt the term 'occupied Palestinian territories', consistent with allies and the United Nations, to refer to the West Bank and Gaza. The government has long believed that Israel's efforts to establish and expand settlements in the West Bank were illegal under international law. Government insiders insist the "horrors" of recent expansions in the West Bank was the final trigger for the imposition of sanctions. They say what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank are two versions of the same conflict, designed to disenfranchise Palestinians and take possession of their land. They argue that without Palestinian land, a two state-solution is impossible. "We believe a two-state solution is the only way to end the cycle of violence," Wong said. "And regrettably, it is also clear that the Netanyahu government rejects it. This is clear from its devastating military campaign in Gaza — civilians being killed by the thousands, children starving. "And it is also clear that from policies including rampant settlement construction and impunity to settler violence in the West Bank. Like Israel's military expansion in Gaza, illegal settlements and impunity for settler violence in the West Bank are extinguishing the prospects of a two-state solution." As Australia was imposing sanctions with allies in the hope of ultimately achieving peace, the US ambassador to Israel was at the same time offering a stark contrast. Mike Huckabee told Bloomberg News that pursuing an independent Palestinian state was no longer a US goal. His comments come just days before a possible meeting between Albanese and Donald Trump on the sidelines of a G7 meeting in Canada. If Albanese's doctrine has helped him find his feet on the world stage, convincing Trump of its merits bring with it the biggest challenge to date.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Renumeration Tribunal sets 2.4 per cent pay rise for MPs, Anthony Albanese to pocket extra $14.5k
Anthony Albanese and other politicians are set for a plumped-up pay packed in just weeks, with the Prime Minister's salary jumping from about $607,471-a-year to $622,050. Politicians, department secretaries and other senior public servants will get a 2.4 per cent pay rise from July 1, following the determination of the 2025 Review of Remuneration for Holders of Public Office. The statement issued by the Remuneration Tribunal on Wednesday noted that the total remuneration increases given in the past year have been 'relatively modest,' totalling 18.65 per cent since 2016. While the 2.4 per cent pay bump matched inflation, it is under the 3.4 per cent wage-price index for the public sector, and less than the 3.4 per cent and 4 per cent increases awarded by the Tribunal in 2024 and 2023 after salaries stalled during the Covid pandemic. 'In contrast, remuneration increases more generally in the public and private sectors (based on overall March Wage Price Index data from 2016-2025) equate to 25.6 per cent,' the statement said. The 2.4 per cent boost was also lower than the Fair Work Commission's Annual Wage Review which determined a 3.5 per cent above-inflation increase to the minimum wage and Australians on modern award wages. A backbencher will see their salary increase from about $233,660 to $239,267, while Sussan Ley will get a boost of $10,374 to $442,643. Jim Chalmers' annual pay will be boosted to $448,625, a bump of $10,514 while cabinet ministers will receive an uplift of $4065 to $412,735. Politicians are also given an electorate allowance which covers expenses incurred to 'provide services to their constituents' such as travelling, in additional to a private plated vehicle. Senators get a flat rate of $39,700 per year, while MPs are given between $39,700 to $57,100 depending on the size of their electorate.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Renumeration Tribunal sets 2.4 per cent pay rise for MPs, Anthony Albanese to pocket extra $14.5k
Anthony Albanese and other politicians are set for a plumped-up pay packed in just weeks, with the Prime Minister's salary jumping from about $607,471-a-year to $622,050. Politicians, department secretaries and other senior public servants will get a 2.4 per cent pay rise from July 1, following the determination of the 2025 Review of Remuneration for Holders of Public Office. The statement issued by the Remuneration Tribunal on Wednesday noted that the total remuneration increases given in the past year have been 'relatively modest,' totalling 18.65 per cent since 2016. While the 2.4 per cent pay bump matched inflation, it is under the 3.4 per cent wage-price index for the public sector, and less than the 3.4 per cent and 4 per cent increases awarded by the Tribunal in 2024 and 2023 after salaries stalled during the Covid pandemic. 'In contrast, remuneration increases more generally in the public and private sectors (based on overall March Wage Price Index data from 2016-2025) equate to 25.6 per cent,' the statement said. The 2.4 per cent boost was also lower than the Fair Work Commission's Annual Wage Review which determined a 3.5 per cent above-inflation increase to the minimum wage and Australians on modern award wages. A backbencher will see their salary increase from about $233,660 to $239,267, while Sussan Ley will get a boost of $10,374 to $442,643. Jim Chalmers' annual pay will be boosted to $448,625, a bump of $10,514 while cabinet ministers will receive an uplift of $4065 to $412,735. Politicians are also given an electorate allowance which covers expenses incurred to 'provide services to their constituents' such as travelling, in additional to a private plated vehicle. Senators get a flat rate of $39,700 per year, while MPs are given between $39,700 to $57,100 depending on the size of their electorate.
