Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like Senator Moore, I rise to make a brief contribution about the role of women in Australian politics. Yesterday I received an email that was actually about a proposed Australian head of state but that said in part:

A CHALLENGE for every WOMAN in the PARLIAMENT:

TELL the Prime Minister, the head of Government, that Australian women need a WOMAN’S VOICE as our elected Head of State, to speak out for women’s social justice ... without fear or favour of Government.

TELL him that Australian women must have an equal chance to fill this highest Office in the land...

I contrast that person’s view on the role of women—obviously a proactive and positive role for women—with the article that my good friend Senator Claire Moore spoke about earlier which appeared in the Australian last week. The heading of that article was ‘Top Lib mocks Labor’s ex-wives club’. I have a confession to make: I am an ex-wife. But I am not the ex-wife of anyone who assisted me in my preselection process. I may have to discuss that with my former partner later, but as he lives in Melbourne he certainly did not assist. The article went on to give a direct quote from Ms McDiven:

... whereas if you look at the Labor women, you’ll find that nearly everyone has got there through their family connections—they’re ‘wives of’, ‘exwives of’, daughters of’, ‘sisters of’. It is an interesting comparison...

As I say, I am an ex-wife, but not the ex-wife of anyone who assisted in the preselection process. I am not, to the best of my knowledge, currently married. I am an only child, so I am not the sister of anyone. I notice there are no volunteers to marry over on the other side! I am the daughter of two self-funded retirees. Both, I confess, are members of the Labor Party, but both were psychologists; neither of them was a Labor politician.

It seems to me that it is a pretty cheap shot to take on what should be a cause for great celebration. We have got to a threshold in this place. Last week we saw Senator Helen Coonan lead the Australian government in question time here, the first time a woman has done so. Over in the House of Representatives, Labor has a female deputy leader of our party and also a female manager of opposition business. Mr Deputy President Murray, I know that your party in particular has had numerous female leaders.

The Labor Party had the first female chief minister, here in the ACT. To the best of my recollection, we have provided every female premier. Much as people may have a view about the Lawrence Labor government in Western Australia, I challenge anyone to say that Dr Lawrence did not get there on merit. Indeed, she was not the sister, the ex-wife, the wife or the daughter of Labor politicians. In fact, as best I recollect, most of her family were more inclined to support those opposite than those on this side of the chamber.

In Western Australia we have a proud history of women making a contribution. Not only did we provide the first female premier but we provided the first Labor member of a parliament throughout the British Commonwealth—one May Holman. I confess that Ms Holman took over the seat from her father, who was a trade union official who died in a tragic accident, but there was no doubt in the Labor Party of the merit of her candidature. She was the very obvious successor, she had deeply held views and she was a very strong advocate for her constituents. Then, of course, there is the contribution that Dorothy Tangney made. Senator Moore alluded to that earlier.

After the initial article in the Australian there was further media speculation, again in the Australian, on Friday last week. It also quoted Ms McDiven. It said:

As Liberal president ... she said she felt sorry for her ALP counterpart, NSW MP Linda Burney, who lost a ballot for the ALP presidency but will be given the job because she is a woman.

I want to correct the record on two counts there. Ms Burney, as she said herself, does not need the sympathy of those opposite. Whilst she has faced some very tragic personal circumstances of late and come through those personal difficulties—I think in an extraordinary manner—she is a dynamic and formidable woman who has made an enormous contribution to New South Wales both in the public sector, as someone who is reasonably learned, and also now as a parliamentarian. Ms Burney nominated, as did three other people—all of whom were blokes—for the rotating ALP presidency.

The feedback I have not only from that article but from some of the women opposite indicates to me that they too feel sorry for Ms Burney because of the place she came in the ballot. It seems to me that what is lacking there is an understanding of ALP processes. It is very easy to pour scorn on someone’s ability and achievement and say that it is purely because of affirmative action. I am confident that Ms Burney would have been elected anyway. You would have to confess that for anyone Premier Rann and Senator John Faulkner are formidable opponents. I am sure that she is quite a competent third member of that team.

As I have said before, we have reached a threshold in this parliament and in the various state parliaments. In reaching that threshold, it would be fair to say there has been a difference in the dynamics of this place. There is a difference in the dynamics of some of our committees and the way they operate and the way debate is conducted in a chamber like this. That difference in dynamics is because all parties have seen the need, through processes of their own, to promote women in politics and to encourage them to see that role as something they should take on.

The Liberal Party do it in their way. I do not profess to understand their internal processes, so I will not in any way try to denigrate the roles of some of their women. It would be very cheap and easy for me to say, ‘If that is merit then give me affirmative action any day’. That would be a cheap shot, and not one that is worthy. All parties choose to promote women in the federal parliament to make our democracy more representative of the population as a whole. After all, women are 52 per cent of the population, so one of these days, if we are lucky, we might be 52 per cent of this place. All of us are doing that in accordance with our own internal cultures.

But we can all do better. We all know it is preselection season in the major parties at the moment. People discuss the comings and goings of various people and their political careers. In my party, there is a need for not just the party to do better but also my own faction to do better. Whilst the Left in Western Australia has made a contribution by ensuring, on the whole, that they do send a female representative to this place, there is room—and obviously in the ACT that is guaranteed, and in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmania, you would have to say, all factions come to the fore. There is a need for the Left in other states to consider that they might like to be a bit more representative of the community.

It is perhaps a bit late to put that on the agenda for the state of Victoria—I know my good friend Senator Marshall would be a little alarmed if I did place that on the agenda now—but it is not too late for my colleagues in New South Wales. It seems to me that in New South Wales, if any of my colleagues on the current Senate ticket are considering retiring—and I know Senator Stephens is not—now is the time for the New South Wales party, particularly my own faction in New South Wales, to come to the fore and prove that it is not just words, it is actions. If they are considering making a change, put a woman in this house.