As seen onFavicon for

Your say: LGBTI politician quota

Labor leadership candidate Bill Shorten says he wants to introduce quotas for politicians representing minority groups, including the LGBTI community and Indigenous Australians. What are your thoughts?


  1. I am sure there are many already in parliament - they just prefer to keep their sexual preferences to themselves. Why not keep it that way - why give people labels, their all pollies representing their constituents in a particular electorate not a particular group in an electorate.
  2. This idea flies in the very face of democracy, MPs are supposed to elected by the public, not by a quota.
  3. Actually, I had thought the Labor party were about making an inclusive vote for their membership? This decision seems to me to be dictating to the voters who should be elected. Bill still wants to control the vote from the floor.
  4. NO! How demeaning would that be?
  5. Advancement should be based on merit, not quotas (and btw, I'm gay, out and proud)
  6. "Personally I don't see any issues for me so long as it is reasonable. That is to say the quotas are representative of the communities they represent within the population as a whole."pippen123 via comment
  7. No I don't believe in quotas except when the disadvantage is obvious and extreme. I therefore accept quotas for indigenous people.
  8. Democracy in its basic form is a representing of the people, and their voice. If minority groups represent more than their share then would that not skew the democratic process to their particular belief systems? Just asking?
  9. I think some people are mistaking democracy with meritocracy which is a system where people are appointed to government based on merit or technocracy which is a system where people who know what they are doing are appointed to government.
  10. "I think that breaking down barriers and enabling minority group representatives to participate in all sectors of our society is a positive step forward, however, I do not think that quotas are the answer."tsj via comment
  11. Albo's just got my vote. What an ill-conceived proposal for bringing about change!
  12. You obviously have a narrow minded view if you think LGBTI representation just consists of an equal marriage vote and equal rights in a society that inherently isn't equal and treats everyone fairly. Often LGBTI aren't represented properly in parliament and this would be a good step forward to achieving this.
  13. "Candidates should be elected by the local folk, but rather than quotas it would be better to look carefully at why there is not more diversity in the candidates."anon e mouse via comment
  14. absurd!!! Everyone will be claiming minority status; talk about cultivating a system ripe for abuse!
  15. Why would anyone claim a minority status for the purpose of abusing the system when it's the system that abuses the minorities?
  16. No, these people should be part of the overall system, able to contribute without worrying about whether they are gay, lesbian, Christian or atheists. Just part of the jumbled up thing we call "society".
  17. "...What kind of a government would be running this country if we had quotas?" - shirl in oz via comment
  18. Totally disagree with quotas. I'm for gay rights, and whilst we're at it, for female rights. But I have great problems with quotas because, at some point, it'll require not choosing the best person for the job.
  19. That will SHORTEN any intelligent debate.