Does one go from speaker of the House to nothing and think they have been recognised and rewarded by their colleagues for the hard yards and effort, or does one just feel the same old winds of inevitability in a system which, after 15 years, I still cannot fathom?

Having left a room where I must admit the bulk of people – both men and women – didn’t vote for me to get the chief opposition whip job not on the basis of merit or perceived capability but on the numbers and the deals done beforehand, one has to question the newly found "democracy" in the Labor party, and the notion that we all have a say.

The problem with women is that they think effort will be rewarded and recognised. They work like girly swots and naively believe that they will get meritorious selection. But there is no meritocracy.

Our new leader Bill Shorten may hope for no rancour in the caucus, but the current outcome of the shadow ministry reflects an immediate reversion to the "faceless men" being firmly in control and does little to reflect the genuine hope generated by the rank and file of an inclusive process for all. Caucus voted on factional lines for the leadership and then sub-factional lines for executive positions, so whilst the party has embraced democratic change, the caucus has not.

Yes, I am bitter and disappointed– I declare that upfront – but it does not deflect from the process. Of course, it is wonderful to see both Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong being awarded such elevated positions within the party, but our process remains one where the most senior women in the Labor party were accorded no positions going forward, and no ability to actually argue their case and demonstrate why they would make the best candidate based on immediate past performance.

After a ballot took place, where the leading contender and indeed winner of the process declared the party must ensure greater diversity and promote women, Indigenous people and people from our LGBTI and non-english speaking background communities, the very same leader has failed to deliver any progress for women in the party.

I agree that we need to be more inclusive and attract a greater diversity of members to put themselves forward to stand for the ALP, but this must apply to the current composition of the caucus – the same caucus that bemoaned Abbott’s lack of women on the front bench must have a fair representation of women in senior roles. Yes, there are 11 women on the front bench but, yet again, the majority come from the left with no advancement by the right or the new leader.

We need to embrace change to ensure all have a say. We need to attract people to the party, and we need not put off great candidates entering parliament just because once there, they will be crushed by the factional system. I know I want a system I can’t currently have in parliament. I am not naive, but I was hopeful for change.

I once asked a former leader how he had made his selection for ministerial positions, which he stated was on merit. I then asked how he had compared my performance against the other candidates, and he left me stony faced. Perhaps my audacity in asking this, and again asking for a vote today, demonstrates that I don’t like accepting what is given to me as a fait accompli. But if someone in the tent does not test the boundaries, who will?