WOMEN'S ELECTORAL LOBBY

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (12:28): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes the contribution of the Women's Electoral Lobby (WEL) to the enrichment of Australia's political agenda over the past 40 years; and in particular

(b) acknowledges and thanks the South Australian members of WEL for their excellent research, lobbying, work and campaigns for women since 1972.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to this motion because, at a very early age (I think that I was barely 17), my mother took me along to a Women's Electoral Lobby meeting at Bloor Court in the city, and from there I was caught up in the campaigning that was happening at the time.

My first entree into Parliament House with Pam DiLorenzo was looking at the issue of rape in marriage and the bill that was being pushed to recognise that rape does happen and should not happen in marriage. Interestingly, Mr Acting Speaker, it was your father, the Hon. Jack Wright, who Ms DiLorenzo and I came to visit to talk about this bill. I was deeply impressed by the response that we got from Jack Wright, so much so that, separate to that meeting, Jack Wright found out that I was actually a constituent and signed me up to the Australian Labor Party.

I was very pleased all those years ago to actually get the opportunity as a trade union official to work with the Hon. Jack Wright; so, he has always been someone who has been a bit of a mentor and a role model to me. That all happened, really, through the Women's Electoral Lobby, so it is a very unusual story but one that I hold very dear to my heart.

Many of us were very fortunate on 2 November to be invited, on the initiation of our Speaker, Lynn Breuer, to be guests at Government House. His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce and Mrs Scarce invited a number of us to celebrate 40 years of the Women's Electoral Lobby not only in Australia but certainly in South Australia. I will just talk about some of the members who were there. They included, obviously, our Speaker, Lynn Breuer; the Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon. Gail Gago; the member for Bragg, Vickie Chapman; the Hon. Tammy Franks from the Legislative Council; and me.

There were a number of people who had also served in this parliament and who had been great supporters of the Women's Electoral Lobby. There was Mrs Heather Southcott AM, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw AM, the Hon. Anne Levy AO, the Hon. Sandra Kanck, The Hon. Jennifer Cashmore and the Hon. Dr Rosemary Crowley. They were some of the people, I know from my own experience, who have been very active in the Women's Electoral Lobby and who certainly supported the Women's Electoral Lobby.

I guess that the highlight for me of this particular occasion was having an opportunity not only to be welcomed by the Governor and his recognition—along with Mrs Scarce's recognition—of the contribution of the Women's Electoral Lobby, but also to hear a speech that was invited from the wonderful Ms Betty Fisher. Betty is someone who is now in her late 80s and who has been a campaigner all her life. Not only is she one of the early members of the Women's Electoral Lobby but also she was in the land army. She was unusually the Sister of the Chapel for the Printing and Kindred Industries Union in the government printing area. She has been involved with many different things, but the one we were celebrating on 2 November was to do with the Women's Electoral Lobby.

What I would like to do is actually recount some of the comments that were made by Ms Fisher, and I know that the member for Bragg is going to supplement my contribution with her recognition of the Women's Electoral Lobby. First of all she started off, of course, acknowledging Kaurna people, and, as she said:

...the First Nation of Kaurna people who lived, laughed and endured the rule of the invading white people. In the 1920s and 1930s a French woman called Simone de Beauvoir, had a book published entitled The Second Sex. It outlines the social, educational and employment situation of women. Together with other declarations in support of women's status being improved, this book was circulated throughout the world. The establishment of Women's Liberation in many countries spread like a storm and enthusiasm for this cause was very high amongst women and girls.

As Betty Fisher said:

Men were puzzled, flabbergasted, outraged and many still are very opposed and still don't understand.

But there were six demands that were drawn up by Women's Liberation, which I think many of us would appreciate:

1. The right to work to earn a living

2. Equal pay—one rate for the job

3. Equal opportunities for work and education

4. Free child care and pre-school facilities

5. Free safe contraceptives

6. Safe, legal abortion on request

Women's Electoral Lobby has also worked in agreement with these aims. In a book (1969-70) Sisterhood is Powerful published in the USA, all the events leading up to the spread of Women's Liberation was clearly explained.

In Melbourne, Beatrice Faust watched all this and noted that Gloria Steinem was questioning politicians. 'We can do that', she said, and called together ten like-minded women to discuss the idea of an electoral lobby.

So the electoral lobby was born—WEL.

In Adelaide, Deborah McCulloch did the same. It made headlines. The media hadn't a clue, and headlines attracted everyone's attention and gave cartoonists great material.

Something which, I might add, has continued. Betty Fisher continued:

The beginning was in February, 1972. A questionnaire was drawn up and interviews were sought with politicians in every State and Territory about what candidates knew of the needs of 51 per cent of their electorate. Many, even most of them, knew nothing at all about the opinions of women.

The first two years were frantic. Interviews with politicians had to be collated and the media contacted to good effect. WEL groups formed in country towns and in the suburbs. Meetings were held every day, then every week and a newsletter was published, the editor run off her feet!

I might say that Betty Fisher, in her printing capacity—I think Raven Publishing was the name of the printing firm—was significant in South Australia in assisting that. Betty Fisher tells us:

Organisations, both non-government and every other group wanted guest speakers and a Speakers List was formed. WEL groups and individuals did some extraordinary things, one was a WEL member of a small group who managed to establish the right for women to gain employment in the abattoirs regarded as an all-male workplace.

One of the first things tackled was a submission to government, formulating wording for a Sex Discrimination Bill, which eventually became an act and law. Other submissions and legislation followed. It is an admirable list.

Among early submissions made to government was one based on a letter from a Mrs B. Gollan urging action for protection of Aboriginal women and children. Over 148 submissions from WEL were made to the government in South Australia alone. An early brief history was made and published followed by several other publications.

Who were these early women who worked so hard in those early years? Some had children, some had careers, some had employment. This did not prevent them from hurling themselves into the battle for a cause that is still unresolved.

Many of them, as Betty said, were present at the function, but there is also a huge list of women Betty recognised on the day. I am not sure in six minutes whether I have time to read all their names, but I will certainly have a try:

They are some of the people who had a significant role to play, as Betty told us, in the Women's Electoral Lobby. I must say that, having also had the opportunity to work for different women's organisations and community organisations, the Women's Electoral Lobby certainly was a great support, as were a number of those women. I particularly remember Jennifer Cashmore and also Barbara Wiese being helpful to the Working Women's Centre, as was Anne Levy and Carolyn Pickles. In those days it was very interesting for me to have the opportunity to work with women who were politicians, who were leaders of women, but who were across the political divide. I commend the motion to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:43): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Ashford and thank her for both moving this motion and also for her work in ensuring that the 40^th anniversary of this important body was recognised with an afternoon tea at Government House recently. It is no small feat to bring together a group of women to celebrate this and to traverse the historical records. To ensure that as many can be invited to enjoy the celebration is no small feat and I thank her for that.

There was an interesting group who did assemble with the Governor and his wife, and I should also acknowledge their contribution in hosting the occasion. As indicated, Betty Fisher provided the snapshot of history of the Women's Electoral Lobby, and the occasion was of great merriment with that contribution.

What I would like to record from my perspective is that I was in the younger group. I had missed all that flower power, smoke-hazed sixties and was more of a child of the seventies. However, the significance of the reform that took place during the 1970s should not be underestimated.

Prior to the establishment of the Women's Electoral Lobby, the era of the beginning of the 1970s is one which should be remembered. It was a time when women had no lawful access to—and in fact were often given very considerable condemnation if they were to access birth control or abortion. The establishment of any child care facility other than by family and friends in any formalised way was non-existent. If you were a woman in the Public Service, you were obliged legally to retire upon marriage.

There was no protection of women within marriage against what was an entitlement of men to conjugal rights under the law that existed. So, this was a very different era in my case from my mother's era, which they endured. So, this was an era in which women had given up their lifestyle, undertaken men's jobs during periods of war, particularly, and had then been expected to go back into the corner at the end of that conflict. 'Equal opportunity' were two words that were really just something that was pie in the sky.

So, for the Women's Electoral Lobby to establish and take up issues that were very controversial is something which should not be forgotten. Advocacy today amongst both women's groups and, indeed, many representative organisations still requires some courage. It still requires an enormous amount of energy, but, remember, for the Women's Electoral Lobby this was way before social media, and certainly mobile phones. The accessibility to communicate a message, and to be able to galvanise and inspire the effort that is required to bring about change, is enormous, and these women did it without much support and without the electronic communications that we have today.

So, they had a very clear understanding that, if there was an issue worth fighting for, they would take it up, they would fight for it. They understood that you could not just write one letter to the editor. You could not just have one public meeting—that if they were going to take up the fight, it went for a long time.

The two issues that I particularly remember through the latter part of the 1970s was the work that was done (and which is still very important today) to develop the rape within marriage legislation. It culminated in the criminal law being changed and women being entitled to protection within marriage, to be able to say no to unwanted sexual advances. This was very controversial at the time. I was a law student in those days and can remember the controversy surrounding that.

Dame Roma Mitchell, who was a justice in the Supreme Court, had written some reports on law reform which culminated in this law changing. But, the protest against that amongst the community at the time should not be underestimated. Well done to those women who were very strong advocates on that issue.

The second issue was for the deductible expense of child care being recognised in the income tax laws. Two attempts went to the High Court with the very vocal support of the Women's Electoral Lobby. Both failed, and still today treasurers will not recognise that child care is an expense necessary for the purposes of employment, and therefore they are not accepted as a deductible expense against income for the purpose of assessing income tax.

I for one, and probably many others in this house, have spent a lot of time with successive treasurers over the years of both political persuasions, I can say, and all of it has fallen on deaf ears. This reform, as a result of these two High Court decisions, does require an amendment to the income tax law, and that rests with federal parliament. I would urge Wayne Swan (he is the current incumbent) to consider it. That needs to be, in my view, remedied. Until that time we will not have women with equal opportunity of outcome if they do not have that. I have been a passionate supporter of it, and I will remain committed to telling our shadow Liberal treasurers from this side of the house, who represent us in the federal parliament, and I hope that that will not fade away.

Baby bonuses, childcare rebates are all different policies that have been introduced by federal governments to deal with this, I think, in an inadequate and cheap way, and they do not recognise the importance for women on this. The Women's Electoral Lobby has never given up on this issue, and I applaud them for it. This is one of the many enormous challenges they have undertaken. We have not been successful on that. If there is one thing I can say about the Women's Electoral Lobby, while there is breath in me, it is that this issue will continue to be fought.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:51): I will just make a brief—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Men are allowed to speak in here, aren't they? I support this motion. The Women's Electoral Lobby has been a very important avenue not just for greater participation by women but for ensuring as far as possible that some of the particularly discriminatory provisions against women have been changed, and that is a good thing. I always welcome groups in the community that are trying to participate in our democratic system, and that is exactly what the Women's Electoral Lobby has done.

As the member for Bragg and the member for Ashford pointed out, there was historically a lot of entrenched discrimination against women in the areas of employment, superannuation, and even laws, particularly in relation to sexuality. Many of those have been dealt with, but I guess you could argue that elements of discrimination still exist.

I want to quickly touch on the question that is often raised, that is: are women as MPs different from men? Well, we know physiologically they are, but after giving this a lot of thought over time I do not believe there is such a thing as an woman's issue or a man's issue. I would like someone to tell me an issue that I as a male MP am not interested in; I am interested in every issue. If it is women's health, I am interested in it.

It is something that female MPs have to be careful about because I think they do adopt a collaborative approach, and that is fine, but they have to refrain from falling into the trap of forming the equivalent of a boys' club, whether it is in parliament or elsewhere, because we are moving away from boys' clubs. Hopefully, we have moved away from the boys' club mentality but not completely, but I see from time to time worrying signs that women might be trying to imitate some of the worst behaviour of men, and we do not want that. In my experience, which is nearly 23 years in here, I have not seen any great difference in the behaviour between men and women. I have seen a lot of excellent female MPs, and I have seen some who are not in that category, but I will refrain from naming them.

We have seen the challenges faced by the current Prime Minister, and I think much of the hostility directed against her is simply because she is female. People can argue otherwise, but I believe a lot of it is to do with the fact that she is a woman. I do not believe she has been any better or any worse than most other members of parliament, and certainly not other people who have been prime minister.

As to the argument that a female MP is naturally going to be more caring, or whatever, if you look at the record of some of the most famous or infamous women—such as Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi and others—I do not see that they have expressed any values of humanity or compassion that have not been shared or held by individual men at different times. I conclude by commending the motion. I know most of the women who have been involved with the Women's Electoral Lobby, and I pay tribute to what they have accomplished over the past 40 years.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (12:55): The reason I would like to close the debate is that I think it would be great if we could vote on this motion today and get that message back to the Women's Electoral Lobby. A number of the activists are in their 80s and 90s, so I think the quicker we vote on this, the better.

Motion carried.