FEMALE PRACTITIONERS ACT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:04): I move:

That this house notes the centenary of the passage of the Female Practitioners Act 1911, the contribution of female practitioners in the 100 years since, and the ongoing contribution of women to the state through the legal profession.

It is also of note that this year, 2011, we celebrate the state's 175^th birthday. It is also of note that it is the centenary of the year we handed over the Northern Territory to the commonwealth—more is the pity, in my view. I think that, once it has established its statehood (and I note there is further discussion about this), we should also open up the invitation to re-amalgamate and undo some of the sins of 100 years ago.

However, with this particular motion, it was my pleasure to move it and to have it seconded by our leader, Isobel Redmond, the member for Heysen. She shares with me the fact that we have been admitted to the bar and, by virtue of this legislation, are lawfully able to act as legal practitioners in the state of South Australia—and it was the passing of the Female Practitioners Act in 1911 that facilitated the same.

The first of the Australasian jurisdictions to allow women to become legal practitioners was New Zealand, in 1896. South Australia, whilst it had pioneered recognition of women's right to stand for parliament and, indeed, to vote (we were the first jurisdiction in the world to facilitate the former and the second jurisdiction to recognise women's right to vote), it did take 65 years for us to get a female member into the parliament, and today we have the Hon. Joyce Steele featured in the House of Assembly in recognition of that. Not to be overlooked, of course, is Mrs Jessie Cooper, who, in 1959, also became a member of the Legislative Council.

As I have said, New Zealand pioneered the way for women to become legal practitioners. In some ways, this is a little disappointing because we also followed Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland. Only New South Wales and Western Australia followed us in passing similar legislation. It is also disappointing because South Australia, which I am sure is well known to members, pioneered education for girls during the 19^th century. We were one of the first jurisdictions to also ensure that it was compulsory for girls to go to school and that public education be provided to them. Our own University of Adelaide, which provided the pioneering Law School in South Australia, was, I think, the third university in Australia. It was also a strong advocate for women to undertake tertiary studies; in fact, that opportunity has been available since 1880.

It is fair to say that the debates to pass this bill were fast and furious and extended across the spectrum. At the time of the bill's introduction, an opponent of the bill expressed the view that 'a woman's place is in the home' and further that 'women would be far better looking after a home than agitating and pleading in courts of law'. On the other hand, a supporter of the bill expressed the view that he did not think the legal fraternity felt much alarm over the passage of the bill. His assessment is supported by the fact that the act did not even get a mention in the Law Society's annual report at the time.

In response to the concern that it would be 'inconsistent with the modesty of women that they should be mixed up with objectionable cases', it was pointed out that it 'would not be necessary for women to have anything to do with such matters'. A further supporter of the bill's passage observed that he 'had no belief that the passage of the bill would cause a rush of ladies to qualify as legal practitioners and that, if he thought there was any possibility of that, he would seriously consider whether he would vote against it at the second reading'.

The bill did facilitate Mary Kitson's graduation from the University of Adelaide in 1916 and, more specifically, her admission to the bar on 20 October 1917. She has the honour of being South Australia's first female lawyer. Although a number of girls had enrolled in the study of law and other disciplines at the university, the enrolment in law was low for the obvious reason that there was no opportunity for them to be able to practise the law at that time. Mary Kitson practised as a barrister with the firm Poole and Johnstone, and the firm was reconstituted as Johnstone, Ronald and Kitson in 1919 when she became a partner. Much of her early practice was in the Children's Court and laid the basis for her later involvement in child welfare reform.

Mary Kitson's role was pioneering in a number of areas. Rather than traverse all those that have been covered in another place, I would like to highlight that in 1950 she was appointed chief of the Office of the Status of Women, in the division of human rights, at the United Nations Secretariat in New York when two major conventions were adopted: the Convention on the Political Rights of Women in 1952, the first international law aimed at granting and protecting women's political rights; and the Convention on the Nationality of Married Women in 1957, which decreed that marriage should not affect the nationality of the wife. Mary Kitson left the United Nations in 1958 and died in Sydney in 1971, having received a CBE.

Many members are familiar with the extraordinary and spectacular contribution that the late Dame Roma Mitchell made to many facets of South Australian life and, in particular, to the law. For the record, today I wish to recognise that she was the first female Queen's Counsel—we now, of course, refer to them as Senior Counsel—in 1962. She later became the country's first female judge when appointed to the Supreme Court of South Australia in 1965. Later, post her life at the bench, she went on to represent South Australians as the Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, and in 1981 she became the founding chairperson of the Australian Human Rights Commission, which was a position she held until 1986.

I had the pleasure of working with Dame Roma in her twilight years, after being fearful of appearing before her when she was a judge in the Supreme Court—and I might say she was a pretty tough judge. In her twilight years, she was the chair of the Advisory Council on the Ageing and I was the chair of the Advisory Council on Home and Community Care, and there was some overlap in that both provided service to senior members of our community. She used to laugh that, of course, by that stage in her life she was actually a consumer and she needed to be considered.

She was a great lady, and I recall one story of hers of note when she was elevated to the Supreme Court—the first female appointment in Australia. She was interviewed by a rather brash young female journalist who observed a number of things in the interview and questioned Dame Roma on them. She said, 'Your Honour, you're not married,' and Her Honour Justice Roma (as she was at that time) responded, 'No, I'm not.' The journalist observed, 'Well, neither is the Chief Justice,' and then asked Dame Roma, 'You don't drive?' Dame Roma said no. 'Perhaps you and the Chief Justice could get together,' was the brash presentation from this journalist, to which Dame Roma responded, 'No, that wouldn't do at all. He doesn't drive either.'

She was a remarkable lady, and it is proper that we recognise her today when we consider the significant contribution of women serving as legal practitioners after the passing of this act. In the last 100 years we have seen the advancement of women in the law, not just the profession. In 1966 we saw women sworn into jury service for the first time. Justice Tom Gray highlighted the significance of this development in an address to the South Australian Law Students Council in August 2010, when he said:

It is to be reflected that a female complainant in a sexual case prior to that time was faced with a court which was almost always an exclusively male environment, complete with a male judge, male associate, male counsel, male court attendants and an all-male jury That constitution is to be contrasted with a sexual case being heard today, on 6 August 2010, before Justice Nyland, the most senior female judge in this state. The court today involved a female judge, female associate, female counsel for both the defence and the prosecution, a majority female jury and a male complainant. This reflection demonstrates clearly the degree of change which has occurred in the profession over the course of the past 50 years.

We have also seen many outstanding women emerge. In the 1950s, regrettably only 5 per cent of law school graduates were female; by the time we got to 1978 the proportion of graduates grew to almost half. Today we see a significant increase to that, graduating some 500 students a year from our law schools (which now extend beyond the University of Adelaide) with some 60 per cent of those graduates being women. Of course not all graduates, men or women, go into legal practice but, by virtue of the act that we celebrate today, they have the opportunity to do so.

The emergence of women's organisations has also been significant. The first, the Womens Lawyers Association of New South Wales, was formed in 1952, and in South Australia we established such a body in 1989. I am proud to be a member of the organisation, and continue to support the events it celebrates.

During the course of the 20 years I was in practice, we have seen a considerable expansion of practitioners who establish their own legal practices and their own chambers. I had the honour of setting up a legal practice with members of my family as well as others, many of whom were women. The establishment of the Anthony Mason Chambers—which, I am proud to say, continues still in Victoria Square today—was in a building in which I had previously operated my legal practice.

It is important that women now take up representation in the Law Society, the Law Council of Australia, and other notable organisations which are very important to stakeholders in the development and review of legislation to assist us and other parliaments, and we thank them for that. The representation of women on those bodies, by the ascension of women through the ranks as counsel, senior counsel and on the bench, heightened the opportunity for women to take on those roles.

I am proud to move this motion in this house. I thank the Hon. Stephen Wade in another place for moving the motion on International Women's Day, which was also important to celebrate at that time. I commend the motion to members and look forward to its passage as soon as practicable.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (12:18): First, I would like to commend the member for Bragg for this motion. It is a very important motion. Most of us had an opportunity to be involved in some of the International Women's Day celebrations recently, and I understand that the member for Reynell has one on 12 April, so she is continuing the celebration of 100 years of International Women's Day further into the year.

The reason this motion is particularly important is that one of the problems we have always had in South Australia—and, in fact, in Australia—has been the sex segmentation of the paid workforce, despite the grand campaigns that a number of us have been involved in. These include, for example, trying to encourage women, particularly young women, to get into non-traditional trades, and having women's skills taken seriously so they do get promoted and recognised for jobs of responsibility in the paid workforce. There has also been quite a long campaign to recognise that women are able to do anything that men can do—and some would say can do it easily, much better. Not being a radical in that area, I will not be going any further down that track.

Ms Thompson: Backwards and in high heels.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Backwards and in high heels, as the member for Reynell says. That is a very interesting quote about Ginger Rogers: how she was a fabulous dancer (as was Fred Astaire, of course) but she did everything backwards and in high heels, and did it with great aplomb.

It is particularly important that, when we look at the history of International Women's Day, which many of us discussed on the centenary of the march, we look at all the areas in the paid workforce. I keep on mentioning the words 'paid workforce', because all of us, but particularly women, have responsibilities and work that we do that is unpaid, which we either volunteer to do or we end up being made responsible for. There have been a number of PhD theses written on the contribution that women make to the unpaid workforce and all the responsibilities that entails, and that the majority of their time is still taken up with doing work in our community.

As I said, I commend the member for Bragg for bringing this to our attention. It is really important that there was legislation that not only encouraged but enabled women to become practitioners. I urge the house to support this motion.

Ms Thompson: Hear, hear!

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:22): In response, I welcome the contribution that has been made by our one and only other speaker. I know that her views on this are shared by a number of people in the house, and I thank her very much for making that contribution. Without further ado, I ask that the motion be put and that it be passed without dissent.

Motion carried.