The 47th Australian parliament, due to meet in a fortnight, will be the most female and most Indigenous to date.
Yet its Liberal party room is moving in the opposite direction.
In the House of Representatives, only one in five Liberal members will be women, the least in 30 years.
There are tentative calls, again, to do something about it.
Former defence minister, Senator Linda Reynolds told the ABC she was "more open to the option" of quotas.
It's déjà vu. Liberal women have been wanting the debate for years. Scott Morrison said he was open to quotas, but nothing came of it.
Since the election, Liberal leader Peter Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud have ruled them out, even though they are common in much of the rest of the world.
From Sweden to New Zealand, political parties on both sides of politics have internal rules that require a certain proportion of their candidates to be women.
To make the idea of quotas sound less scary, Reynolds referred to them as "targets with teeth," which is what they are. And said they should be temporary, which targets are usually designed to be. When equal representation becomes normal, there's no need for them.
The Australian Labor Party adopted quotas in 1994, at first guaranteeing women one third of winnable seats. Its numbers in parliament are now close to 50/50, suggesting the quotas have worked in making the proper representation of women common-place.
The Liberal Party already has a target without teeth - it's 50 per cent by 2025. Reynolds says it isn't taking hold because "internal processes" are getting in the way.
"We don't look like the community we wish to represent," she says.
The problem lies in attitudes as much as it does in systems and processes. Each feeds off each other.
To ensure gender quotas work, parties need to find and recognise women: actively recruiting women who join at the grassroots and supporting them as they ascend party hierarchies.
They need to ensure women are placed in winnable seats, something that has been made more complicated by the 2022 election result that has challenged the notion of "safe" seats.
The objection that quotas undermine the selection of candidates on merit reflects an understanding of "merit" that emphasises traditionally masculine traits and skills.
A study using cross-sectional data sets from 139 nations between 1995 and 2012 found that quota shocks - those associated with a large increase in women's parliamentary representation - tend to be followed by increased government spending on health.
They are often paid for by decreases in spending on defence. This doesn't make those decisions worse than those made by male-dominated parliaments, it makes them different (and more representative).
Australia's biggest minor party, the Greens formed in 1992, long ago reached gender parity at the federal level without quotas. That's because gender equity is baked into its way of thinking.
It has open decision-making and preselection processes, as well as a strong emphasis on a diverse membership. It has an active First Nations group to build a pipeline of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander candidates.
The Coalition seems to have little appetite for the same sort of thing, which is shocking. The first Indigenous member elected to federal parliament was a Liberal - Neville Bonner.
There's a lot quotas can't do. They can't substitute for the deeper cultural and structural changes that are needed to combat misogyny, sexism, and gender norms.
They are actually a fairly blunt tool that does little more than normalise the presence of women, along the lines of the quota arrangements for front bench appointments within the Labor Party and the Coalition that ensure the left and the National Party are represented.
Another thing that can help is the parliamentary environment. The conditions of work (perceived as less flexible and less safe than the outside world) need to fit in with the realities of women's lives.
Traditional political parties are under strain. We don't know much about what makes women want to join them and become candidates, but we know that women are less likely than men to join, and that girls are less likely than boys to aspire to careers in politics because they see it as a man's world.
Meanwhile, workplaces in the Australian Parliament have been encouraged to develop a long-term strategy to advance gender equality and inclusion in last year's Set the Standard report by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins.
It stopped short of recommending quotas but does urge the adoption of gender targets accompanied by an annual public report of diversity characteristics among parliamentarians by party, and that change be supported by an appropriate allocation of resources.
Surely the existential threat facing the Liberal Party requires a rethink of the kind it hasn't had the courage to take seriously.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.