Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to address the issue of gender equality in the Liberal Party, and it seems quite apt after Senator Moore's wonderful tribute to Joan Kirner. I am a very proud WA Liberal woman. When I look around my party, I see an astonishing number of talented and inspirational women, who quite simply are the engine room of our party. All our women are preselected and elected on merit, but the simple fact is we do not yet have enough women in leadership and parliamentary roles.

Today, over seven out of 10 elected Liberal representatives in Australian parliaments are men—over seven out of 10. I cannot help but wonder, if we are truly a meritocracy, how this can possibly be. I am neither a gender warrior nor an advocate of quotas, and I do not identify as a feminist—or at least what feminism appears to have morphed into today. The sisterhood's battle cry, I believe, remains stuck in the past and is a narrow and angry left-wing narrative, one of victimhood, and one that demands women receive special treatment, simply because we are women. This is not the approach I have ever identified with and I have come to believe it does far more harm today than good. I agree with Dame Elizabeth Couchman, one of the founders of the Liberal Party, who said her concerns were not for the battlesome female who talks of 'sex war', but for women who put public good before personal ambition.

Gender is not a 'woman's' issue; it is an economic and social issue. The GDP foregone every year as a result of gender economic inequality is estimated at 20 per cent. This represents an annual loss to our economy of over $300 billion every year—$300 billion! I believe it is time to rethink our approach, and narrative on gender both as a nation and as a party. But to do that we first have to unshackle ourselves from the old narratives of the past to ones based on empowerment, based on strength and based on equality. My favourite Dame Elizabeth quote is: 'Not all wisdom resides under the hats of men.' She said that over 80 years ago, and I believe it is just as true today as it was then.

I believe our starting point when looking to the future must be the belief that, while women quite often do it differently from men, we do it just as well and, in many cases, better—and we do it because we are women, not in spite of the fact that we are women. There is no doubt that women in Australia have made great strides in the past few decades, and internationally Australia ranks comparatively well against many socioeconomic indicators. Despite this, there are many areas in which Australia women still face significant and entrenched difficulties and challenges. Today women are still much more likely to be economically disadvantaged, earn less than their male counterparts, have significantly less retirement income and security and be subjected to the most heinous and high levels of abuse and even murder. I was particularly disappointed to learn that in my home state of Western Australia the gender pay gap is the worst in the nation, today sitting at 25.3 per cent. This is particularly disappointing given that in 1969 there was a legislated pay gap for women of 25 per cent. We have not moved much since then.

Today women comprise nearly 60 per cent of Australian university graduates, but only 52 per cent graduate into professional positions, many starting off their careers in professions earning less than their male counterparts in the same job. The leadership and pay gaps both increase as their careers progress, with only 10 per cent of women reaching executive management and only 3.5 per cent becoming CEOs. Today, of the 400 CEOs and chairs of ASX 200 companies, 6.5 per cent are men with the first name 'Peter', while only 5.75 per cent are women. Think of the implications of that for young women today—men named 'Peter' have a greater chance of promotion to CEO and chair positions in our top companies than they have as young professional women. The previous Chief of Army, my former boss and mentor, David Morrison, said this:

I'm no sociologist. I have no anthropological training. But I am certain of this: we live in a world where the squandering of women's talent, the traducing of their potential is a global disgrace.

Across all parliaments today in Australia, women represent 31.8 per cent of all elected representatives. This is a figure which has pretty much flatlined over the past decade, lingering around the 30 per cent figure regarded by the United Nations as the bare minimum necessary for women to influence decision making. Today, only 20 per cent of ministers across the nation are women. In 1995, 11 per cent of international parliamentarians were women and—20 years later—it is now 22 per cent: a doubling, albeit from a relatively low base. Over the past 20 years in Australia, female representation has increased from 20.7 per cent in 1996 to 31.8 per cent today. As a consequence of this slow increase, Australia's international ranking for women in parliament continues to decline when compared to 190 other countries. Australia has fallen from 20th in 2001 to 45th today. Female representation across all parliaments by political party is as follows: ALP, 43.1 per cent; the Greens, 55 per cent; and the Liberal Party sits at just 22.6 per cent. In fact, our party's lack of progress has been the most significant contributor to our nation's decline in international rankings. Internationally, 22.6 per cent would rank the Liberal Party somewhere between Kyrgyzstan and Eritrea.

In 1902, the Commonwealth of Australia was one of the first national governments to grant women the right to vote and allow them to nominate as federal candidates. Despite this promising start, since Federation only 11 per cent of our 1,656 members and senators have been women—100 in the House of Representatives and 91 in the Senate. Through the 1950s and 1960s, while more women were nominated for preselection, the prevailing belief remained in major political parties that women would not poll well and were not suited to the rigours of politics. As Dame Elizabeth again observed at the time: 'what women think today in politics, men will think tomorrow'. I am sure she would have said they would have thought that the good idea was theirs in the first place! Her good friend and colleague Sir Robert Menzies shared her point of view and her passion for women in politics. His vision for women in politics was clearly laid out in a 1943 national broadcast specifically on women for Canberra. He said this:

We have travelled a long way in our civic outlook upon women, and even if we were reluctant and straggling wayfarers, the events of this war, in which women have been such workers and warriors, would surely have speeded us on our journey.

He concluded the speech with this:

…we should shake our minds clear of whatever prejudice may linger in them and honestly and sincerely acknowledge that there is just as much room in all our public bodies for public-spirited and intelligent women as there is for public-spirited and intelligent men.

Sadly, Sir Robert's foresight is yet to be fully realised in our national parliaments.

The facts are very clear: without a proactive and positive approach to women's socioeconomic outcomes, women in Australia will continue to lag behind men. If politics was a battlefield of ideas, then I believe Dame Elizabeth was a general. Sir Robert said: 'she would have been the best cabinet minister I could have wished for', and, 'she was the greatest statesmen of them all'. I know she would have been proud of the contribution women make to the Liberal Party today, but I suspect she may have been a little disappointed with our rate of progress. One thing I know for sure is that she would never have given up advocating and fighting for women everywhere.

The 70th anniversary of the Liberal Party this year is a wonderful opportunity to discuss this issue honestly and openly to find a new narrative and a new approach—one based on participation, optimism and equality. Women have so much to offer and to contribute as women. The challenge for us today is how to fully realise this potential—so that women have the opportunity to do better than 'Peters' in our society. As the US General Gordon Sullivan said: 'hope is not a method'. Hope may not be a method, but it is a most powerful motivator and a strong catalyst for change.

Senate adjourned at 22:28