Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start my contribution tonight by quoting from an article in the Canberra Times. It said:

While the Liberal Party’s representation of women in federal parliament is smaller than Labor’s—women hold 38 per cent of Labor and 21 per cent of Liberal seats—

and I will complete the party representation numbers: National Party women hold about 19 per cent of seats, women hold 50 per cent of Australian Democrats seats, with Australian Greens women holding 75 per cent of seats. It is also worth noting that since 1996 there has been a 154 per cent increase in the number of ALP women in parliaments around the country. The article went on to say:

… the Libs can nevertheless boast some significant achievements: the longest-serving woman in Cabinet, Amanda Vanstone …

And it would be remiss of me not to mention here that on Monday, 9 October, Senator Helen Coonan made history when she led the government in the Senate—the first woman in our 105-year history. I, personally, would be happy for Senator Coonan to continue in that role until the next election, at least. The Canberra Times article went on:

But while every gain and milestone women reach along the path to winning a fair share of power is cause to celebrate, let’s not lose sight of how small these gains are.

This brings me to the point of my contribution here tonight. Last Thursday, on the day of the Liberal women’s gala dinner organised by Senator Coonan to celebrate Liberal women parliamentarians—an excellent initiative; initiatives such as this highlighting the work of female pollies from all sides of politics should be encouraged and applauded—we were confronted by an article on the front page of the Australian newspaper that was a rather disgraceful, cheap piece of point-scoring attacking Labor women by Ms Chris McDiven, the Liberal Party’s federal president.

It should be noted that Ms McDiven was in Canberra to attend the dinner organised by Senator Coonan. It is a shame that Ms McDiven did not choose to use her first foray into the media to shine the spotlight on the Liberal women’s celebration and highlight their contribution. I would like to think I echo the views of all women in this parliament—I know I echo the views of at least Labor women—when I say that I found this article to be very depressing and disappointing: depressing because it appears that Ms McDiven has fallen into the easy trap of attacking other women—surely we have left this type of politics behind us—and disappointing because to attack women politicians in this manner is reprehensible.

It shows a myopic view of where Labor Party women have come from and trivialises the battles and milestones which have been achieved by all women who have passed through these chambers and in state and territory parliaments. Surely the strength and the voice of Australians are enhanced through a diversity of voices in parliament, be it gender, religion or culture. Surely, the fact that there are women in parliament representing the range of political ideologies is something to be proud and supportive of.

Women bring to parliament and parliamentary debate a different perspective, and the fact that we are women is but one of the lenses which we use when assessing, debating and discussing issues before us. In the short time I have been here, I have already seen that women are prepared to listen and to support one another across party lines on issues. The debate on RU486 was a classic example of the diversity of views not just within the parties, but of the multiparty support the bill received by sponsoring women senators.

To say that all Labor women are sisters, wives, ex-wives et cetera just shows that the federal Liberal president cannot argue against Labor’s sound and robust affirmative action policy. Instead, she is playing the woman, making a personal attack on all of us as people with little talent and little commitment to Labor fundamentals and ideas as well as making a mockery of democracy and the people who vote for us. These sorts of accusations only serve to lessen a woman’s drive to enter male dominated institutions, like parliament, due to point-scoring. Women everywhere should be encouraged, challenged and supported to continue to break down the barriers in traditionally male dominated environments—and parliament is one such environment.

These types of comments from Ms McDiven are not the sorts of politics that we should engage in—attacking women and their families and relations and claiming that there is no merit system, passion or commitment and instead claiming that Labor women politicians are nothing more than apparatchiks. Her comments have failed to recognise the sheer hard work it has taken for Labor women—in fact, all women—to move forward in this arena. It is exactly this type of empty, baseless attack on women which hampers participation in the political process.

Women normally find themselves in caring roles that have them thinking of someone else before themselves: ‘Are my children okay? Does my partner have everything they need?’ Then maybe, just maybe, they will think of themselves. I make no bones about the fact that today there are still barriers to women stepping up to the political mark and putting themselves forward for public service. I agree wholeheartedly with Ms McDiven’s comments that ‘you had to go and find women; women tend not to put themselves forward.’ I could not agree more. But then you read interviews such as Ms McDiven’s and you cannot help but wonder why they would.

I am proud that in the Labor Party there are formal structures to assist potential female candidates. Affirmative action rules have been fought for long and hard, along with the principles that underpin this action of inclusiveness, to lift the level of female representation. Organisations such as EMILY’s List and the National Labor Women’s Network are there to assist and support women as potential candidates and as politicians. I am a proud member of EMILY’s List. EMILY’s List is a vibrant and successful group organised by women for women. EMILY’s List provides mentoring, training, encouragement, support and financial assistance. Labor understands the need to nurture potential and current women politicians. Just as men have their ‘clubs’, we too recognise the need to support women in a challenging environment so that they can develop and continue in this career.

It is a desire of mine to see both chambers with equal numbers of women and men. It is a dream of mine to see women in increasing numbers in senior and influential positions. Articles such as those by Ms McDiven only intensify this desire. It will be great to one day not have to read such pap about women politicians, irrespective of the political persuasion of the press. I would like to think this will happen in my day or at the very least in my daughter’s day. We have come a long way, but comments such as Ms McDiven’s do a disservice to all women in this parliament. Just because we may come from different political backgrounds does not mean that the parliament and Australia is not better served by greater gender equality.

I call on all women in this parliament to think long and hard before falling into this easy trap of insulting other women. Surely a cornerstone of democratic and constitutional ideals is equality irrespective of gender, colour, race and religion. Let us enforce this. Let us be strong and brave and, irrespective of political leanings, band together to stamp out this kind of disservice.