Do we like them?

Do we like Julie Bishop?

Our score: 5 out of 10. A groundbreaking career and some good votes, set against party-line votes on LGBTQ+ rights, asylum and climate, plus an unresolved row at ANU.

Julie Bishop was the Liberal member for Curtin in Perth, and she went on to become Australia's first female foreign minister, serving from 2013 to 2018. She was a household name for years, famous for her poise on the world stage. After politics she became ANU chancellor and, in 2024, the UN's special envoy on Myanmar.

The ANU saga is the messy bit. In August 2025 an academic told a Senate committee that Bishop was “hostile and arrogant to staff”. Bishop rejected the allegations and said there were no grounds to step aside on untested claims. She held on for months, then walked out in May 2026, blaming outside interference in the university's governance.

On the harm test, her record is a mixed one. In 2015 she said she had no concerns about same-sex marriage, though she backed a public vote rather than a parliamentary one. But They Vote For You records her voting consistently against same-sex marriage equality and against extending benefits to same-sex couples, and she never voted against her party.

On asylum and the planet, her votes also followed the party line. She consistently voted for turning back asylum boats and against removing children from immigration detention. She voted against a carbon price and against more investment in renewable energy. That is her record in the chamber, not her private views, which we can't read from votes alone.

There are real positives. She consistently voted for access to abortion medication, for stem cell research and for government-run paid parental leave. In 2024 she took on the thankless UN envoy job on Myanmar, a conflict with few easy wins. Those votes and that appointment count for something.

One more mark against her is her move into consulting. She joined the board of the Palladium consultancy in July 2019, months after leaving parliament, and Labor argued it could breach ministerial standards. It is a minor stain compared with the bigger questions above.