The lady has a point.

And we use the word "lady" deliberately. Had the same argument been made by a man, he would probably have been accused of chauvinism, of wanting to roll back advances made by women in politics, or of being uncomfortable with female representation in Parliament. Yet the person raising the issue is Marlene Mizzi, a woman who built a successful political career through her own efforts and electoral appeal, not through a corrective mechanism designed to improve gender balance.

Her argument therefore deserves to be considered on its merits.

Mizzi's criticism is not directed at the three women who for the second time entered Parliament through Malta's gender-corrective mechanism. Bernice Bonello, Julie Zahra and Cressida Galea have every right to take up the seats provided to them under the law. The issue is not personal. It is systemic.

The question Mizzi raises is whether a mechanism designed to create opportunities for women is functioning as intended when the same beneficiaries are able to rely on it for a second consecutive legislature.

The gender-corrective mechanism was introduced with good intentions. It sought to address a longstanding imbalance in Maltese politics, where women remained significantly underrepresented despite making up half the population. A Parliament that better reflects society is a healthier Parliament.

Yet no law should be considered beyond scrutiny, particularly after it has been in operation for two electoral cycles. The purpose of legislation is to solve problems. If new problems emerge, they must be addressed.

One criticism increasingly heard during election campaigns is that the mechanism may be creating unintended consequences. Male candidates and their supporters often complain that female candidates enjoy an additional route into Parliament, urging voters to give preferences to men as women will "get in anyway".

Indeed, the latest election results seem to suggest that this sentiment is gaining traction. On the Nationalist Party side, only one female candidate who contested failed to secure a parliamentary seat. While this may appear to be evidence of success, it also raises questions about whether the mechanism is now producing effects beyond those originally envisaged.

More importantly, the system is not fair to all women.

The case of Sandra Gauci illustrates the point. Gauci obtained more votes than some of the women who entered Parliament through the corrective mechanism. Yet because she did not contest on behalf of one of the two parties that qualified for the mechanism, she remains outside Parliament.

This creates an obvious contradiction. A system introduced to improve female representation ends up excluding a woman who secured stronger electoral support than others who were ultimately awarded seats. It is therefore understandable that Gauci is considering a legal challenge.

None of this means the mechanism should be abolished. But acknowledging the value of a system does not mean pretending it is flawless.

The current legislature provides an ideal opportunity for a comprehensive review. Parliament should commission a serious study examining how the mechanism has operated over its first two electoral cycles, identifying both its strengths and its shortcomings. Such a review should be evidence-based rather than ideological.

Among the questions worth examining is Mizzi's proposal that no individual should benefit from the mechanism more than once. Another is whether the system should be broadened to ensure fairness for women elected outside the traditional two-party framework. There may be other solutions too.

What matters is that the discussion takes place.

The gender-corrective mechanism was introduced to create opportunities, not to become a permanent conveyor belt for the same individuals. If adjustments are needed to ensure that more women are given a chance while preserving fairness and public confidence, then Parliament should not shy away from making them.

Good laws are not those that remain untouched. Good laws are those that evolve when experience shows they can work better. Malta's gender-corrective mechanism may well be one such case.