The choices they make and actions they take often reveal their true priorities and motivations, despite the spin they may put on it.

We saw this play out in the federal government this week, with the Nationals MPs agreeing to a net zero emissions target by 2050, in return for several measures including a regional transition package and an extra cabinet position.

While it seems a bit of a leap for the government to claim that its "plan" - released with neither details nor modelling - is a "practical way" to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, there's another fascinating aspect to what has evolved over the past few days: the elevation of an additional Nationals MP to cabinet, one of the top tier decision-making circles in government.

The Nationals now hold five of the 24 cabinet positions, not a bad outcome for the junior member of the Coalition.

The new appointee is Queensland National Keith Pitt, Minister for Resources and Water, an advocate for coal who in December 2020 dismissed a climate change warning from the United Nations secretary-general as an inconsequential "grand statement".

His appointment in the context of calls for greater action by Australia on climate change is interesting to say the least.

The ability of the Coalition to increase the number of National party representatives in Cabinet overnight by 25 per cent is in stark contrast to its lack of action on achieving gender equality.

In 2013, then-prime minister Tony Abbott announced one woman would hold a position in his 20-strong cabinet. His response, when questioned about this, was that: "These positions should be based on merit."

The political manoeuvering of the past week calls that premise into question - was Pitt's appointment really on merit? Arguably not, so perhaps there is much more the Coalition could do to increase the number of women in cabinet from the current seven members.

"Merit" itself is an interesting concept. The merit argument is based on the belief that people are promoted, recognised and rewarded based on they do - outcomes, results, behaviour. The reality is that merit is a myth. As highlighted by Jan Fran in her clip, "The Frant: I got here on merit and other not-quite-truths", there are more men named John running ASX 200 companies than there are women.

At the time of publishing her clip, only 13 of the 58 NSW Supreme Court judges were women, and 17 per cent of the male judges attended one high school.

According to Jennifer Whelan, research fellow at the Asia-Pacific Social Impact Leadership Centre Melbourne Business School, various studies have shown that in situations where merit is emphasised as a basis for selection and performance appraisal decisions, men are more likely to be selected, and more likely to be awarded higher salary increases, compared to equally rated women.

In practice, the merit system does not actually reflect fairness, equality, or objectivity. Indeed, merit-based systems "discriminate" on the basis of how much "merit" a person has. When you delve into the details of leadership in Australia, the statistics suggest that white, affluent, privately educated men are somehow more meritorious than other people. Do we really believe that?

Quotas are one proven way to achieve greater diversity and gender equality in leadership, but suggestions to implement targets and quotas are overwhelmingly met with the claims that they are "anti-meritocratic".

As highlighted by Catherine Fox, author of Stop Fixing Women, there are two key problems with the merit argument.

Firstly, everyone must have equal access to acquiring whatever quality is defined as "merit" - the so-called level playing field.

Secondly, people must be assessed only on criteria that predict performance. These two criteria are rarely met, and our unconscious biases exert a powerful influence on our decision-making.

Research indicates that men and women are stereotypically perceived to differ on two key dimensions - warmth and competence.

Women tend to be perceived as interpersonally warmer and less competent relative to men, and men are perceived as less interpersonally warm and more competent relative to women.

An emphasis on merit activates the stereotype that men and women differ in their degree of competence or capability, and unconsciously influences our perceptions and judgments.

We have many capable, competent women who would make excellent leaders in all levels of government and corporate leadership.

We need to acknowledge that the systems we currently rely on are not actually meritocratic, but rather reflect unconscious and systemic bias.

If we want to achieve gender equality and greater diversity, we need to challenge our deeply held beliefs, to make our biases conscious, and to make different decisions.

And we have an opportunity to do just that with local government elections on December 4.

Make your vote count.