HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

REDMOND, MRS I.M.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:30): It is with pleasure that I move:

That this house congratulates the member for Heysen on becoming the first female leader of a major political party in South Australia.

Of course, the Liberal Party's achievements in relation to political firsts in our history is well known. Recently, when Dr Brendan Nelson gave his final address to the federal parliament, he acknowledged a number of firsts—the first refugee, the first Aboriginal and the first woman—which the Liberal Party was responsible for introducing into the parliament. South Australia particularly has a very proud record.

I remember that, at the time of giving notice of this motion, it appeared to invoke a slightly negative response from the member for Chaffey. She apparently took objection because she is a female leader of the National Party in South Australia, although I am not sure which National Party, whether it is the real National Party, the South Australian National Party or some other group.

I respect the fact that the member for Chaffey is a member of this parliament. However, although she takes issue with the fact that she is not being recognised in this motion, it is difficult to imagine how you can be a party of one. However, there are others who have been recognised in other jurisdictions, including—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: —yes, very short meetings—Natasha Stott Despoja at the federal level, as well as the Hon. Sandra Kanck, who was the leader of her party (a party of two and, ultimately, a party of one). Importantly, the Liberal Party has taken the lead, and this state has been no exception. I am reminded, by the extraordinary attributes the member for Heysen brings to this parliament, of the remarkable history of Agnes Goode here in South Australia who, in 1924, representing the Liberal Union Women's Branch, became the first female member to be endorsed by a political party in Australia.

That was followed in 1959 by Jessie Cooper and Joyce Steele (who is depicted wearing Versace blue and who is brilliantly displayed in the chamber), who was the member for Burnside and the first female member of the parliament. In 1966, Joyce Steele became the first female South Australian cabinet minister. In 1993 to 2002, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw became the South Australian parliament's longest serving cabinet minister and, in 2006, Senator Amanda Vanstone—again a great female South Australian representative—became Australia's longest serving cabinet minister. Of course, she took the title from her Liberal predecessor in Victoria, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. So, we have a proud history.

I return to Agnes Goode. In 1916, Agnes Knight Goode became a justice of the peace, and in 1919 she presided over the state's Children's Court, and she was also part of the National Council of Women. Her areas of work and activity were with the Liberal Women's Educational Association, becoming secretary in 1916 and president in 1921, and she also edited the women's page of the Liberal Leader.

Issues of the day for Agnes Goode included female police officers and women having equal guardianship rights over children. Many members would be aware that, recognised in the infant guardianship bill debate (and displayed in our own chamber), is the pioneering work done in the late 1930s in this very parliament to achieve that. She believed that women should be better represented on government boards and juries—an effort that is still being contributed to today—and that there should be equal pay for women in that regard.

She was an articulate public speaker, and the Adelaide Advertiser described her as a 'vigorous speaker, with a keen, logical mind and experience backed with good common sense'. In 1924—and this was probably what most impressed me as an example of how Ms Goode is now represented by our own member for Heysen in this parliament—she said, when explaining why women should be elected to parliament:

Do not let anyone imagine… that I am antagonistic to a man's point of view, but I feel that in public affairs men and women should have equal rights and take equal responsibilities. After all, the family is the basis of our national life, and where the two partners coordinate in the best interests of the family the best results accrue..That is why I think women should enter parliament. There is something bigger than either manhood or womanhood, and that is humanity.

I think that in every respect that principled position has been clear in the contributions made by the member for Heysen during debate in this parliament, and it is an example that she ensures is espoused and permeates the legislation we deal with.

As to the importance of Agnes as one of the first women in South Australia to be appointed a justice of the peace and a stipendiary magistrate, again there is some analogy to be drawn from her history. Powerful, strong, intelligent, competent, courageous women whom the Liberal Party have presented to this parliament and who have served with distinction include Joyce Steele, who is displayed on our wall here. The member for Heysen follows them in a great tradition.

I urge members of the house to recognise and congratulate the member for Heysen as the first female leader of a major political party in South Australia. I am sorry if the member for Chaffey takes some offence at that, but this has been a significant achievement, and I congratulate the member for Heysen. Her own experience in family life and professional life in the legal world and her contribution to the parliament, particularly as shadow attorney-general, have been very significant. She continues to be a competent and feisty advocate for the issues of South Australians, and I will proudly work with her, as will the opposition, as we lead up to the election in 2010. She will then have the opportunity, with the good grace of the people of South Australia, to be the first female premier of this state.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:38): I, too, support the motion congratulating the member for Heysen becoming the first female leader of a major political party in South Australia. I think it is also important to note the member for Chaffey as the leader of the National Party and Sandra Kanck heading up the Democrats. I guess there have been other leaders, and I guess we can debate what 'major' means, but I do not think that is appropriate at this stage.

In 1895 the Constitution Amendment Act gave women the right to vote and stand as members of parliament. Looking at the history of those debates and the history that went behind the debates that were recorded in parliament, it certainly did put members of parliament in a tailspin to think that women should have the same rights as them and also to stand for parliament. I understand from the history that I have read that women standing for parliament was originally introduced as a wedge position, as we call it now, but eventually people saw the sense of allowing women also to stand for parliament.

South Australia's first political candidate was Catherine Helen Spence, who stood for election to the Constitutional Convention of Federation in 1897. However, it was not until 1918 before a woman stood for parliament as a non-party candidate, and it took another six years before a political party adopted a woman as an endorsed party candidate for parliament. The opening of the new session of parliament in 1959 was front page news when the first two women elected to the South Australian parliament, Joyce Steele and Jessie Cooper, took their seats—and I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Bragg that they were members of the Liberal Party.

Recognising the importance of women as decision makers, the Rann government, I was very pleased to see, in our very early days made sure that part of the South Australian Strategic Plan was to increase the number of women in parliament as well as encouraging women to stand in local government. The T5.3 Members of Parliament clause in the South Australian Strategic Plan is to increase the number of women in parliament to 50 per cent by 2012. Certainly in the Labor Party we have some work to do, and I know my colleagues will support the fact that we are very serious about the 50 per cent target.

In looking across the chamber in this house I think that certainly the 20 per cent figure that the Liberal Party has in this house will mean that it has a lot of work to do; it has another 30 per cent to make up, whereas on our side we have another 4 per cent to make up so that we have equal representation. I must say I have always argued that, because women hold up more than half the sky, we should actually go for more than 50 per cent, but I am known as a radical in the Labor Party, and I guess that is in line with my thinking on other issues as well.

We have discussed in this place the importance in local government of having good representation, and I know a number of programs have been put in place by the women themselves in local government as well as the Local Government Association to encourage women of all ages, particularly young women, to take their place in local government.

South Australia does have a proud history of encouraging women to take their place in parliament, and I remember well the national conference in Tasmania where we actually passed policy that supported affirmative action in our party to make sure that women also had the opportunity to run for winnable seats. It is all very well being nominated as a candidate but, as people in this chamber would well know, if you are being nominated and being supported as a candidate but you have no hope of winning, it is a bit of a hollow gesture as far as affirmative action is concerned.

I must say that one of the reasons that I am a very proud member of Emily's List in South Australia (and in fact have just been re-elected as the convenor) is that Emily's List dedicates its time to making sure women have a fair go as candidates. A number of us in this place have been, and hopefully will be in the next election, Emily's List candidates but, for some of the new candidates and certainly the women in marginal seats, Emily's List is a very important support for them. So, not only do we have an affirmative action policy in the Labor Party but we also make sure that we have mechanisms in place to support and mentor women and not just leave them for dead as they become candidates in difficult circumstances.

The Rann Labor government has also made it a priority that women in positions of decision making and power have an opportunity to exercise the knowledge and many skills that they have. This has been part of the drive on boards and committees, particularly those that are within the reach of the government and parliament, to make sure that we have proper representation.

I know that, in the trade union movement, this has also been a policy that has been supported. The fruit of that policy is very much exemplified in Sharan Burrow who, as we know, is the President of the ACTU, following Jennie George (another excellent ACTU president) and, in South Australia, Janet Giles, the first woman since 1894 to be secretary of what was the Trades and Labour Council and is now SA Unions.

I am very pleased to see the member for Heysen in this position of leadership. I think she will be an excellent addition to the Liberal Party's armoury. I have every faith that she will continue to be an excellent leader.

I say to members on other side that I think the Labor Party has a lesson to show them and maybe they should start thinking about affirmative action so that they get quality women candidates in this place, and we will be able to look at more women in the House of Assembly. Certainly, the women who are here (the member for Flinders, the member for Bragg and the member for Heysen) do a fantastic job, and I take this opportunity to say that. However, it is very sad that, as I understand it, the member for Flinders is going to be replaced by male candidate. So, we will be not only missing the member for Flinders but there will be one woman less on the other side.

With those comments I, too, congratulate the member for Heysen on becoming the first female leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:47): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—perhaps, one day, we will have a female speaker and that will be a great outcome.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We have already had one, Molly Byrne.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, it is time we had another one! I am happy to support this motion, not only because I believe the member for Heysen is very capable but she is a very decent and honourable person. I heard a few people say, 'She's too honest.' I said to her privately, 'Don't ever move away from being seen as being honest and don't ever cease to be honest because that is the sort of member of parliament we want, and the community wants.'

The attainment of that office is one that deserves praise. In passing, I have sympathy for the member for Waite. I think he was caught up in unfortunate circumstances but politics is a fairly brutal business, as we know. I think he suffered a fairly harsh fate for something that, in my view, was not as serious as others portrayed.

I grew up with three sisters, who are wonderful human beings, and there was no discrimination in our family (I have two brothers as well). I can understand why people go into bat for genuine equality in the wider community but in our family I never saw any example where the girls were discriminated against in any way, shape or form.

It is important to acknowledge that we have made a lot of progress in our community in regard to allowing women to realise their full potential. However, in focusing on our own backyard, we should not overlook the fact that, throughout the world, women (and girls, as well) suffer tremendously as a result of prejudice, discrimination and ill treatment. It is not only imposed by fundamentalist regimes. I personally find abhorrent the fact that women have to totally cover themselves because I think that is a form of enslavement and diminishes their significance.

The fact is that they are denied schooling in a lot of countries and do not get adequate medical treatment. I have raised in this house before the fact that each year over half a million women die throughout the world because of inadequate pre and postnatal treatment. When I raised that issue, I got a nasty letter from someone asking, 'Why would you bother focusing attention on people overseas?' It was for the simple reason that they are human beings and, in that case, they were women who were being disadvantaged and ill treated by society and by particular countries.

I do not support and never have supported quotas. Plenty of women in the community have merit and, by going down the path of quotas, I think we diminish their talents. We need to move away from the idea of women always being victims and being diminished in their capability by talking about targets as if they need some special help to compete and to be leaders.

I would be quite happy if all members of parliament were female. I have no problem with that whatsoever. However, it should be based on ability and merit. I find that a lot of people who talk about quotas always choose a surgeon who is the best; they do not choose by the surgeon's gender. Likewise, if they go to any professional they go to the person with the ability.

If that means that all those positions are held by women, I am quite relaxed about it—that is good. As long as they are the best person for the position, then I am all for it. I do not believe in giving positions on the basis of gender, race or any other consideration because, at the end of the day, what you are really saying is that those people are not capable of achieving their goal. There is a difference between equal opportunity and what is often portrayed as equality.

We have had some excellent women in this place and we have had some not so excellent ones. We often hear people say, 'If we only had more women in parliament, the world would be a better place.' That may be the case but I am not so sure. I have seen some women in here that I would not want to have any influence over anything in the community—there are not many but I could name one (but I will not) who I regard as a particularly nasty individual.

I think the assumption that simply because someone is a female they are going to be more noble and Mother Teresa-like is an absolute nonsense. You only have to look at history to see that there have been some women who have been particularly evil, particularly nasty, just as there have been plenty of men in that category. I think we have to be careful about anointing all women as saintly or as angels—they are not.

To come back to the substance, back in 1992, I managed to get a group formed in this parliament to have a look at the impediments that women face getting into parliament and staying in parliament. That was picked up by Jennifer Cashmore who tried to implement some of those recommendations through this parliament. I have always been a strong supporter of getting women into parliament and ensuring that they stay here.

We still do not have any crèche facilities here; we do not have any childcare facilities, not just for women but for men as well. This parliament is not in any way really family friendly; we have made some slight adjustment, but there is still a long way to go.

The essential focus needs to be on merit, and I believe that that should be the overriding consideration—not gender or any other specific characteristic. We have reached the stage where we no longer need a minister for the status of women; I think that is condescending and inappropriate.

The government still maintains—as did the previous government—discriminatory policy in relation to schooling for girls. DECS runs specialist schools for girls but does not run specialist schools for boys and yet, if you look at the justification, girls are doing better at university and elsewhere educationally than boys. Because of this ideological approach, we still have specialist schools run by DECS for girls, but none for boys. There is no justification for that. I am not against single-sex schools; I am against the discrimination involved and the fact that you run some for girls but do not run any for boys. I am not against single-sex classes, either; I think they are a good idea in certain situations.

Sadly, I think Labor governments get hooked on an ideological view, and that is reflected in trying to get mileage out of the situation relating to women. We have to move away from seeing women as victims, as being creatures who are not capable of looking after themselves, who are not capable of reaching the highest positions in this country. They can. You only have to look at people like Julia Gillard to see that there are plenty of women who have the ability and the talent, but we do not want people there simply because of their plumbing, whether they are male or female.

I support this motion, but I trust that the Liberal Party does not go down the path of setting quotas. I think that is a bad move and I hope the Labor Party moves away from artificially and mathematically trying to engineer what is a philosophy-based view that women are somehow inadequate or unable to cope and achieve in this day and age. I think women can and they should and, as I said at the start, I am happy if all the members in this place in the future are women. If they are the best ones for the job, then I am all for it.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:56): I am happy to speak to the motion congratulating the member for Heysen, and I totally endorse the remarks of the member for Ashford, who I thought made a marvellous contribution. She, however, did forget to put on the record the remark of former Victorian premier Joan Kirner, who once said that, when the house is full of mediocre women, we will know we have equality. I think when you reflect on Joan's remark and think about what she means by that, you can see that we have a very long way to go.

Only through affirmative action have we seen the numbers of women come into the parliament where you might one day even strike someone who has no ability, because we have so many women on this side, all of whom have worked very hard for their preselection and to win their seat. It is pure merit that you are seeing on this side of the house because, without the tenacity of the women's movement that saw an affirmative action board, there would be no way we would have been able to get over the numbers of mediocre men who we know were preselected through various mechanisms.

Members interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: No; but in support of that, before I go on, I would just like to mention, following the member's remarks on Molly Byrne, that when I was first preselected in 1997 to run for the seat of Florey, which was an unwinnable seat, I received $20 for a lipstick from the Molly Byrne and Marie Skitch fund. As we all know, it may sound like a very antiquated little thing but if women do not have on their lipstick or are not dressed better or do not have their hair done or have not had the makeover, that is all you hear about them. You do not hear what they say—it is how they look—and if we wanted to look around the room and talk about ties and shirts, it would be a fun day, I would think.

Another person said—and we will have to find out who it was—that opportunity is a fine thing. So, how do you get the opportunity? We all know that 1894 saw dual suffrage granted in this state but it was only when it was tested before the courts in 1959 that we actually found out what members really meant when they wrote that bill to allow dual suffrage. A fine paper prepared by Jenni Newton-Farrelly from the parliamentary library following up on a question for the member for Light has come out in the last few days. While I have not had the opportunity to read it thoroughly, it talks about the fact that the right to stand was tested only because your woman candidate was selected in a winnable position.

Ms Chapman: Not quite. You should read the Supreme Court judgment.

Ms BEDFORD: Yes; but the only reason that it went to court is that she was in a position to win. Until that time, as far as I know, everyone ran in seats where they did not have a chance to win. I am not saying that it is a bad thing but we need to look at these things in context. So, when you say that you have the equal right or the opportunity, it is not actually true because it has always been framed in a way that women were never going to succeed. In any case, how can you prove merit when no-one has the chance to get in here to prove that they have the ability to run?

I will not go near the remarks on girls in schools because that would just get us too excited, but I do want to talk about the fact that women have worked very hard. The member for Bragg was talking about 1924 which, unfortunately for her, triggered in my memory that that was the year that Muriel Matters-Porter, a South Australian-born woman who went to England, ran in the seat of Hastings. If we want to talk about opportunities, we can see how men kept women out of parliament for many years in the motherland.

Ms Fox: Wound up installing toilets.

Ms BEDFORD: And a whole pile of other things, and they have worked very hard since 1866 to get even the vote—not even the right to stand, but just the vote.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: Well, men seem to have been a problem in the whole equation for some time. The member for Bragg and I are in total agreement on that point. However, Muriel ran, and she had no chance of winning, but that did not mean she should not have a go. How anyone could say that the women running the suffrage movement in England had no merit is beyond me. Their organisation was superb. The only thing that kept them out was the fact that parliament was full of men who would not pass the law to give them the right to vote, and we all know why: because they knew they would be successful. I wish the member for Heysen all the best.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (12:01): In taking over the leadership of the South Australian Liberal Party team, the member for Heysen, Isobel Redmond, enters a long list of firsts for the Liberal Party in South Australia. It is a tribute to the confidence that the Liberal Party places in its women members, a confidence that I freely acknowledge needs to grow.

Liberal women have always been at the forefront of political and social action and were active in the movement that brought about the decision in 1894 to give women the vote and the right to stand for parliament. While New Zealand beat South Australia to the punch in giving the vote to women in 1893, South Australia was the first to allow women to stand for parliament.

Voting rights for women were introduced into international law in 1948 when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 21 includes the statement:

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly through freely chosen representatives. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Women's suffrage—that is the right to vote—is also explicitly stated as a right under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted by the United Nations in 1979.

When the Commonwealth of Australia was founded in 1901, some women were given voting rights because this right existed in South Australia. In 1902, the right was extended to all non-Aboriginal women. As far as I can ascertain, Aboriginal men always had the vote in South Australia and, when women were given the vote, that right included indigenous women.

Liberal women have always been involved in the community. In 1913, the Liberal Women's Branch Committee initiated a parliamentary delegation to the Women's Non-Party Political Association which, after seven years, secured the appointment of the first woman, Catherine Helen Spence, to the Destitute Board of South Australia.

In 1924, Agnes Goode (nee Knight) was the first woman to be endorsed by a political party. I was intrigued to find that she had a link with Eyre Peninsula. In 1896, she married William Edward Goode, a sheep farmer from Port Lincoln. She moved the family to Adelaide in 1915. One source said this was possibly because her husband was an unreliable manager.

In World War I, she was founding vice-president of the Women's State Recruiting Committee. She served terms as secretary and president of the Liberal Women's Education Association and, in 1916, became a justice of the peace and a member of the state Children's Council. From 1919, she presided over the state Children's Court and would have won the support of all who take up the catch cry 'tough on crime'.

Other achievements include being a councillor of St Peter's Corporation, an official visitor to the Parkside Mental Hospital, the Adelaide Gaol and its Convicted Inebriates Institution. Other groups and interests were poetry, theatre, Aborigines, housewives, unemployed women, travellers, local industries and kindergartens.

In 1955, Senator Nancy Buttfield (later Dame Nancy) became the first South Australian woman in the Australian parliament. She was known for her advocacy of women's rights. It is said that, with the encouragement of Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies, she broke down long-established barriers in Old Parliament House by becoming the first woman to drink at the previously male-only members' bar.

The year 1959 was a stellar year for women in politics in general, and Liberal women in particular, with the election of Joyce Steele to the House of Assembly and Jessie Cooper to the Legislative Council, both the first women to hold those positions. My husband's mother was from the Steele family, and his family took a great interest in Joyce and politics in general. When we were married, his interest in politics became mine and probably led me to entering parliament in 1993.

Both Joyce and Jessie made their maiden speeches in moving the Address in Reply in July 1959. Some things have not changed over the years. Typically, the first thing Joyce and Jessie were asked by reporters was how they would handle their domestic duties and politics. Similarly, in some of the first articles that appeared about the member for Heysen in her new role as leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, the reporter's interest in hairstyle and dress was at the forefront.

However, it is her standards of political behaviour as a role model for our community that is of more interest to me, and her stand on swearing I hope will be a watershed that will see better language standards adopted both state and federally. I and many Australians were disgusted with the poor example (as reported in the Sunday Mail on 20 September) recently provided by the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, when speaking to his colleagues. His bullying and intimidating behaviour from the top gives licence to others, making them believe that it is acceptable in our society to verbally abuse others, including wives and children.

In the same newspaper on the same day, there was a report on the foul language used on radio by Bob Francis when speaking to an elderly lady, who was brave enough to complain about his language on air. That behaviour was brushed aside by his employer FIVEaa as 'typical of Francis' and by the man himself with the statement that his audience would not be offended because 'they know what to expect', which shows a lack of respect for other people and is blatant bullying and intimidating.

In the same edition, there was another article about a young father, Tim Hilfery, who was lamenting that he would not be able to take his young son to the soccer—which is desperately trying to promote itself as a family-friendly game—after witnessing the shocking language and behaviour of fans from both sides. He commented that the police—forced to stand in the middle of these two groups of posturing, snarling morons—seemed unable or unwilling to do anything.

Is it surprising when our standards of acceptable behaviour towards other people have fallen so low that even the Prime Minister does not see verbal abuse as a problem, thereby condoning it? No code of conduct in schools, sport and parliament can reverse the damage done by such acceptance, and I commend the member for Heysen for her stand.

The legislated male dominance in the South Australian parliament did not go down without a fight. Immediately prior to the 1959 state election Frank Chapman and a colleague challenged the right of women to stand for election to the Legislative Council on the basis that the use of the pronoun 'he' in South Australia's constitution must be interpreted as excluding women.

Five days before the election the court ruled that the issue must be decided by the parliament. Mrs Cooper won the election comfortably. The opposition then joined with the government of Sir Thomas Playford to pass retrospective legislation, enacted as the Constitution Amendment Act 1959, affirming women's rights to stand for both houses of South Australia's parliament.

Liberal women continue to achieve. In 1966, Liberal candidate Kay Brownbill was the first South Australian woman elected to the House of Representatives, and in 2006 Senator Amanda Vanstone became South Australia's longest serving female cabinet minister. And, now, in another Liberal first the party has elected a woman leader, Isobel Redmond, the first woman to lead a major political party in South Australia.

In Isobel we have a person with honesty and integrity and a strong interest, commitment and proven dedication to community. She has a strong sense of social justice, a quality instilled in her and her family from a young age that has been a driving factor throughout her life. Her experience in the legal profession, as a mother, a community person, as shown by her 28 years on her local hospital board, and since 2002 as a dedicated member of parliament representing the electorate of Heysen, have all shaped her in being the remarkable and diverse woman that she is.

Her knowledge across portfolio areas, including responsibility as shadow attorney-general, shadow minister for families and communities, housing, disability, ageing, justice, the arts, road safety and multicultural affairs, are all testament to her ability to tackle new issues with enthusiasm, passion and intelligence.

Mrs Redmond's understanding of both city and country issues come from her experience in living in the Hills community close to the city but working in a legal capacity in the city. In this role she provided legal representation for Aboriginal communities in the Far North-West of the state, where she is equally comfortable. Her approachability and ability to get to the kernel of a matter will be assets in the tasks she is undertaking, and her communication and listening skills are invaluable as a leader for the future.

The trust placed in her by her colleagues is an indication of the high regard that the Liberal Party places on women and on their practical involvement in politics, especially as members of parliament. The Liberal Party has a track record that we can be justifiably proud of. It will be interesting to read a retrospective of the life and achievements of our leader, Isobel Redmond, member of Heysen, in years to come. I congratulate her on past achievements, and I look forward to addressing her as 'premier' before long.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Ms BREUER (Giles) (12:11): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and how proud I am to see you sitting there. It is good to see you in that role; 50 years ago you would have had no opportunity. I also want to congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition. I was very pleased, and I congratulated her at the time. It is good to see her in that role.

I do fear for her, though. I think she probably has been handed a poison chalice, and I certainly hope that, with the next election, with the current polling—and it seems that once again we are going to win government—she is not accused and blamed for the loss of the Liberal Party. I am very concerned that that is probably what will happen, and maybe that is why she is there, in some ways. I do not want to detract from her, though, because she is a good woman. We have always been fond of her from our side, and we are very pleased to see her get into that position.

I am waiting to see how long it takes before the media start to attack her, because this tends to be what happens with women in politics. I think we do get a lot more criticism. I think we have to be pretty tough to survive in politics, particularly because of the way media often treat women. This is a long-standing thing, and it continues.

I was really sad to see, a couple of weeks after the leader was elected, an article in the paper talking about her makeover. I thought: this is appalling. How far have we come when we are talking about her makeover and even the textured stockings that she was wearing? I thought: we have not come far when we have articles like this still appearing in the paper.

We still have a long way to go. I heard this morning on radio that the cricket board has reappointed three men. They do not have any women on the cricket board, despite the fact that women do watch cricket, are interested in cricket, and, of course, we have very strong women's cricket organisations in South Australia. But this is typical—

The Hon. P.L. White interjecting:

Ms BREUER: With my sporting background, you think I should be on it? Mm? This is typical of what happens. It is very difficult for women to get onto boards, etc., and we still have a very low participation rate, in Australia, of women on boards, and this will continue. We have to keep that fight up.

One of the problems with women is that we are not taken seriously. I was interested to hear the member for Fisher's contribution this morning. I will read that again and have a good look at it, because some people just don't get it. I remember an experience when I was on the council in Whyalla as deputy mayor. We had a meeting one night, and there was some discussion, and I came up with an idea. I said what I thought, and people listened, and then just went on to the next person, and they said, 'Oh thanks, Lyn,' and went on to the next person. Three people later, one of the men said exactly the same as I did and came up with the same idea. It was immediately proclaimed as a great idea, 'That's what we are going to do. We will do this from now on.' I just sat back and thought, 'Am I here? Is this really happening?' But I am sure that everyone of my female colleagues could relate a similar sort of experience.

What is seen as decisive and smart and tough in men is often seen as bitchy and calculating in women; we get accused of that. Men get ahead because they are smart and they are the best person for the job, but women are often accused or asked who they actually slept with to get there, and this goes on consistently.

Members opposite say that they do not need affirmative action to get women into the position of preselection for an MP. Well, I feel for them, because you only have to look at the number of women in the party on the other side compared to the number of women who are in ours. We are almost 50 per cent, and after the next election I think we will be.

You just need to look at the number of women on our side to see that affirmative action is important. It is something that helped us get there. It gave us an opportunity and we did not have to prove that we were super women to be preselected. We were given an equal opportunity and an equal chance. I am very much in favour of affirmative action, and I seriously think that members opposite should start lobbying for similar action in the Liberal Party.

The world has changed and ageing feminists like me are very pleased with what we have achieved, but we do despair at the lack of understanding of young women particularly about what we have achieved. They do not really understand what life was like for us. In my first job, I remember that we had to sit around, look good, be cute, giggle and take notice of everything that was said to us—and make the cups of tea.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Ms BREUER: Yes, and we were paid less. When I started work, I sat alongside a fellow who did exactly the same job as me but who was paid one-third more than I. It seemed incredible at the time. Women are still struggling to get recognition in our society, despite the work of my wonderful feminist colleagues from the past and the battles and the achievements. Domestic violence is still a major scourge in our society. Of course, men can be victims of domestic violence—they can be attacked, etc.—but basically domestic violence is about women. It is a problem which women still have and it is still a major problem. We do not seem to have overcome that. It is all about power struggles.

We are still battling—not so much in South Australia, but in many parts of the world and Australia—to keep the right to abortion on demand. That is not seen as a right for women. We are still paid less than men. Even though we have equal wages now, the average wage for women is much lower than it is for men. We are still having to make choices between careers or children, and I think that, these days, it is even tougher for women. Many young women opt to have children but many do not because it is too difficult. It is always the women who feel guilty about putting their children either into a child-care centre or into the care of someone else. We are the ones who deal with that struggle and who worry about the issue.

I am very proud to have raised my children as a single mother. I had minimal support from my ex-partner, but I could not have done it without my major support, namely, my mother. Mothers have played an incredible role with their daughters over the years and continue to do so. They help them. I could never have raised my children and achieved this job and my previous jobs without my mother consistently backing me and being my best support. My women friends were also very important. We always said that we do not need antidepressants: we just need a cask of white wine, a packet of Tim Tams, a sit down for a couple of hours and we feel much better. I know that I went through many hard times—

Ms Bedford: Tim Tam therapy!

Ms BREUER: Tim Tam therapy, yes; and white wine and good friends who can talk things through with you. There is a very strong women's network and we support each other very well. My daughter says to me that she is very proud and thankful that I gave her very strong role models in my women friends. I think she is a young women who will go on to achieve, but she talks about the wonderful role models that I gave her over the years and my women friends. I am sure she has memories of sitting around the kitchen table watching us eating our Tim Tams and sobbing into our white wine but, at the end, being able to conquer the world because we were able to talk to each and, as a result, we felt so much better. I think that women's networks are really strong, but I still think we have a long way to go before we can say we have achieved equality in our society.

I congratulate Isobel. I certainly wish her well in the job and I am pleased to see it. I also acknowledge the other women before her, such as the Minister for Water Security, who have been leaders. I guess it has never involved a major party with so many members behind her, but I hope she is watching her back. It is good to see her achievement. However, I feel that, when we reach the stage of not having motions such as this congratulating a woman on becoming the first leader of a major party, we may have achieved.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:20): I, too, strongly support this motion. In so doing, I will pick up on some comments made by other members, particularly women members who have contributed today. It is fair to say that in society today behind every successful man is a woman who has made sacrifices. It is absolutely true that men who are successful in their career have done so at the expense of their wife's career. In the end a decision needs to be made about children, the home and general culture in the home. More often than not, women rather than men are prepared to make those sacrifices. I thank very much the women who have done that.

I endorse the point made earlier by the member for Giles. I long for the day when it is no longer newsworthy that a woman becomes the leader of a major political party or heads up a large corporate organisation, or that we have a separate award for business women of the year. The day when it does not matter what gender you are is still far ahead of us, but I long for that day. As the father of a 15 year old daughter who is preparing to enter the workforce over the coming years, it is certainly something that I would like to see in the short term—although I think it will be a long-term project.

When I conduct school tours of Parliament House, I always point to the tapestry that celebrates women's suffrage in South Australia. I make the point that that happened in 1894 but that it took another 65 years before a woman was elected to the parliament. I also show the students the bust of Sir Thomas Playford, who was our longest serving premier but a socially conservative man. I explain that when Joyce Steel was elected in 1959 and Tom Playford came across her in the corridors of Parliament House he greeted her by saying, 'Hello girlie.' I can just imagine the reaction today. It is fair to say that even Tom Playford was out of tune with community values on social issues in those days.

During the 1965 election campaign, the then member for Modbury warned him that the electorate of Modbury over the years had turned from a rural seat into a metropolitan seat as a result of a lot of English immigrants moving to the area. The then member for Modbury also warned about letting people have a drink after 6 o'clock and buying a lottery ticket. Tom Playford did not think it was an issue at the time and, consequently, lost the election by one seat—which happened to be the seat of Modbury.

An extraordinary social change was legislated in 1894 but it was not implemented until 65 years later. Even then, a lot of people were not ready for that change. I can remember my mother telling me that once she married she was expected to resign from her job to look after her husband. Once children came along a woman could never get back into the workforce; so, consequently, a lot of women had to choose between a career and a husband. It was a high price for women to pay.

Ms Breuer interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Some women would say that the choice is very easy—I understand that—but those women had to give up the joy of having a family. Yet men enjoy both: they enjoy their careers and their families, which, generally, are held together by the women in those families.

In relation to the significance of Isobel Redmond's rise to the leadership of a major political party—that is, the Liberal Party here in South Australia—if you look at Isobel's character, she is a woman who, when an opportunity comes her way, grabs it and turns it into a success. If you look at her history, there is no doubt that, when an opportunity came her way that enabled her to start at a law firm, she did so and turned it into a success. An opportunity came her way to become a member of state parliament, and she took that and made it a success.

She was a very successful shadow attorney-general who spoke very passionately about that role, and she is still very much a socially progressive and socially responsible member of the parliament. Constituents in Unley are also very pleased to see a woman with such a progressive social agenda leading a major political party in South Australia, and I hear some interesting comments to describe Isobel Redmond when I am doorknocking. For example, just a few weeks ago, one woman told me how wonderful it was to have a politician who answered questions.

What people like about her is that she has common sense and she is no nonsense and strong and tough, and these are the consistent messages I am getting about Isobel Redmond as leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party when I am doorknocking. I am very pleased to support the member for Bragg's motion, and I am certainly enjoying the ride as a member of the parliamentary team with Isobel Redmond as leader. I congratulate her and continue to look forward to working with her.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:27): I rise to support the motion that congratulates the member for Heysen on becoming the first female leader of a major political party in South Australia, and I say that with absolute fondness for Isobel. We both came into this place in 2002 and, from the day I met and spoke with her, I knew that what you saw was what you got—and that is what you get now.

Unfortunately, many women in professional and political life have comments made about their dress, their hair, the way they conduct themselves and whether they wear fingernail polish. It is ridiculous, but Isobel's very pragmatic attitude was, 'Well, if my appearance is getting in the way of the message, I will have to change my appearance.' That is the pragmatic person Isobel Redmond is: what you see is what you get.

In fact, for her birthday a few years ago I bought her a magnifying glass and a fine toothcomb because, whenever Isobel is going through documents and legislation, she knows exactly what she is talking about and does not miss the detail, and we have seen that in the hours of debate between the member for Heysen and the Attorney-General on legislation. She goes through the fine detail in a logical and methodical fashion and, in 99 per cent of cases, she wins the debate because that is the sort of person she is.

As to the comments we have heard today about the success of women in both politics and business and about whether you need Emily's List and affirmative action or you select on merit, if you ask Isobel Redmond she will tell you that it should be on merit and that no extra help should be given, other than to make sure that it is a level playing field in the first place. We have that in the Liberal Party, and in the Labor Party they have Emily's List and so on. However, for Isobel to have achieved the position she has today is in many ways due to her personality, her determination and her dogmatic approach to things, but it is also due to the fact that she is a member of the Liberal Party.

The history of Isobel Redmond having made the choice to come and live in South Australia is one that is on the record. Her history in the legal fraternity and her friends on both sides of the political divide in the legal fraternity are well known. Isobel never withdraws from a challenge; she will always talk to people. Her latest challenge was the City to Bay last Sunday, and I know she did it in one hour and 37 minutes. I think the Premier did it in one hour and 46 minutes; both very good results. My wife and I did it in one hour and 41 minutes. I am ashamed to say that my training started when I walked through the barriers on King William Road on the way up the hill. I did not do any training.

Isobel Redmond taking on a challenge is nothing new; this challenge of being Leader of the Opposition is a tough job. It is one of the toughest jobs in politics, as the Premier said the other day. One of my areas of passion is Aboriginal affairs. Isobel has worked in Aboriginal affairs. Talking to me the other day about whether there was one thing she would change in Aboriginal affairs, an Aboriginal woman said, surprisingly, 'I'd come back as a man.' That should not be the answer that she felt compelled to give. As the member for Giles said, we should not need to have these debates congratulating women; we should be doing what the Liberal Party does, and that is allowing women with merit, drive and passion to come up through the ranks to achieve the position that Isobel Redmond has.

I congratulate her on having done this. I look forward to serving under her as the first female premier of this state in March next year, because I guarantee there will be no stone left unturned; no debate challenge unanswered; every opportunity will be grasped, just as she has done to achieve what she has already today, to make sure that in March next year Isobel Redmond will be the first female premier of this state, and I look forward to being a minister in her cabinet.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:32): I, too, speak in support of the motion brought to the house by the member for Bragg. I certainly want to join with colleagues here in the house in congratulating the member for Heysen on her elevation to the leadership of the state parliamentary Liberal Party. As the member for Morphett pointed out, we came into the parliament at the same time; we were successful at the February 2001-02 election. The members for Morphett, Bragg and Heysen and I were the lower house Liberal members elected at that election.

I had not known much about Mrs Redmond prior to the 2001-02 election campaign. I came onto the scene relatively late and was preselected for the seat of Kavel actually after the election campaign had commenced, but that is all history; we were successful and we have moved on from there. I remember that the local newspaper, the Mount Barker Courier, through that election campaign period comprehensively covered both the member for Heysen's campaign and my own in Kavel and that we met on the Sunday immediately after election day and had a photograph taken together as the two successful members elected to seats in the Adelaide Hills. Since that time—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Was that the first time you met her?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No; I met her before that. Our electorates of Kavel and Heysen neighbour each other and take in specific districts of the Adelaide Hills. Since that time, I would like to think that the member for Heysen and I have established a very good friendship.

I would like to talk about the member for Heysen's previous career in the legal profession. Through hard work and commitment (and all the things that the member for Heysen is well-known and respected for) the member for Heysen has forged an outstanding career in the legal profession where she was respected and liked by her peers.

Mrs Redmond, in her previous career, dealt with a diverse range of issues concerning legal matters and legal representation. As I said, she earnt respect amongst her peers, and since entering parliament she has also earnt that respect. As the member for Morphett said, the member for Heysen has applied herself to all her parliamentary and electorate duties. I particularly want to focus on her parliamentary duties and how she has dealt with legislation.

She has been a shadow minister for quite a number of years. She was first elevated to the shadow ministry under the leadership of the Hon. Rob Kerin (former member for Frome). She set about her tasks as a shadow minister with real diligence and commitment. That has clearly been evidenced by her work in parliament in relation to the carriage of legislation in the house.

Through her work as shadow attorney-general, she stitched up the Attorney-General on many occasions, particularly during the course of the committee stage on legislation. Many times she had the Attorney-General completely bamboozled and he did not quite know how to dig his way out of the situation.

Talking more broadly, the Liberal Party has a different policy to the Labor Party. The Liberal Party elects people on merit, not on gender. It has a proud reputation and a proud history of electing people to a whole range of positions and preselecting people into parliament based on merit, not on gender. That contrasts significantly with the ALP which has a quota system determining how many women are elected to various positions and into parliament, and it is not necessarily based on merit.

The member for Heysen has been a strident campaigner about this, particularly in the course of debating legislation where there are prescriptive measures on the election of members of boards—for example, where the composition of the board is eight and at least two or three women have to be members. We have seen that time and again. The member for Heysen has argued vehemently that it should not be gender-based, that it should be on merit.

The member for Heysen herself has been a strong campaigner for the election of people to positions in public life or in the corporate world (whatever career people pursue) where the individual person is elected or appointed to that position on merit, not on gender. The Liberals have led the way. We have been trailblazers in relation to women in public life. As other members have said, Jessie Cooper was the first woman elected to the other place in 1959 along with Mrs Joyce Steele who was the first woman ever elected to the House of Assembly in that same election in 1959.

That is a clear indication that the Liberal Party has been a trailblazer in promoting women on merit. As a tribute to her contribution and in recognition of her being elected here to this place as the first woman, a portrait of Mrs Steele hangs here in the chamber. They are some quite valid points in relation to the contrast between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party in terms of the way each party deals with gender.

I want to relate my comments back specifically to the member for Heysen (Mrs Isobel Redmond). As others have said, she is an extremely intelligent, articulate and straightforward person who has a great deal of common sense and that again contrasts significantly with the leader of the government—the Premier. Since the member for Heysen has been elected as the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the state Liberal Party, we have seen that there is a real contrast between her and the Premier and, in six months' time when the March 2010 election rolls around, the people will have the chance to vote for a real choice, to vote for change and we will see the member for Heysen as the state Liberal leader lead the Liberal Party to electoral success.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:42): I have been listening to this debate with some interest for a number of reasons. The first one is, of course, that as a member of this parliament for some time, I have had the opportunity of seeing the member for Heysen perform many different tasks and roles. I and, I think, others have been impressed with her way of conducting herself. I have enjoyed the interactions that I have had with her and I certainly wish her well in her new role.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr RAU: As the member for Light observes, not necessarily as well as the member for Kavel wishes her. However, I am just a bit puzzled about the motion because a number of members of the opposition have stood up and made the point that this is all about merit—it is not about gender. It is not about gender at all; it is about merit. I am trying to follow this line in my head and see where that will take us and I am thinking about that. I have my mind exactly in the same place as the member for Kavel as best I can. I am following his reasoning, and I think I am with him.

Then I read the motion, which states, 'That this house congratulates the member for Heysen'—so far, I am still following his argument—'on becoming the first female leader of a major political party in South Australia.'

Mr Kenyon: Uh-oh!

Mr RAU: Uh-oh—exactly! They are either on about merit or they are on about gender and they are trying to have a bob each way, as people might say. They want to be able to say, 'It is all about merit, gender doesn't matter, but by the way we are here with this flashing sign about gender.'

I do not profess to speak on behalf of the member for Heysen at all, but I would like to say a few things about her election. First, like the member for Kavel, I would be very surprised if her gender had anything to do with her election. Secondly, I would be very surprised if she would not have been unhappy if it did. Therefore, I wonder again what the consistency is between some of the arguments or endorsements that have been put and the actual motion that is before us.

As I said before, the member for Heysen and I came into this place at the same election in 2002. I think everyone here except perhaps the member for Light would know—and it is not a matter that he should be worried about not knowing—that since approximately March 2002, I have been looking after this column and we have become quite good friends. We have shared many moments. We have had different people come and go as our guests in the adjoining seats, but the two of us have remained here together—rock-solid. It is a partnership which I think shows all the hallmarks of being a lasting one.

I cannot remember where the member for Heysen started, but I am pretty sure it was not next to one of the columns. Her meteoric rise through the ranks of those who sit opposite is, I think, both testimony to her and to those by whom she is surrounded. I do not think I need to explain that any more other than to say that, obviously, the skills that she brings to this place are well recognised by her peers. As I have said, it is a very invidious comparison for me, as a member of the class of 2002, here with my column. I think even the member for Kavel started off by a column, if I am not completely mistaken.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr RAU: That's right. The member for Kavel, like me, was a column-hugger some years ago, I think occupying the spot that the member for Flinders now occupies, but he has moved on, too. He has kicked goals; he is now a frontbencher and I think the whip—today, at least. That is the other joyful thing about the elevation of the member for Heysen: it is like going to one of these children's birthday parties where, even though the chair has come away, there is always a prize because, every time the music stops, everyone gets a crack at the lucky dip and everyone has a spot, and that is great.

Ms Bedford: It's merit.

Mr RAU: It's merit again; everybody has a go. The one thing I would say to those members who have spoken so positively about the next election and what might happen on 21 March 2010 is that, as I understand it, once we get to 21 March 2010, if your aspirations prove to be correct, there will be a different situation, because when the music stops there will not be enough parcels. There will be a terrible moment of reckoning, and some people will be out of the game, at least the main game.

In the event that you folks are successful in 2010—as I have said, obviously, I do not wish that to be the outcome—I am looking forward to seeing that jostling for positions when the music stops. But I do have a few tips. I think the member for Kavel is going to be okay, because I think he has demonstrated that he has what is required to do what is required. I know that I am speculating. Crystal ball gazing is always difficult, but I think the member for Schubert is probably going to move on to bigger and better things and hand the baton on to the member for Kavel.

Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order, Madam Acting Speaker, whilst I welcome a contribution from the member to this important motion, to say that he is straying from the subject matter I think is an understatement. I do not think the member for Schubert is a woman. This is a very important motion. I think other members, on both sides of the house, have treated it with the seriousness that it deserves, and I would ask that the member be brought to heel.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order are not debate either. I do not uphold the point of order. The member is talking about the team led by the member for Heysen, the Leader of the Opposition, and I ask him to be cognisant of the points made by the member for Bragg.

Mr RAU: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to get to the passing of the baton, because I think it is important—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr RAU: To the member for Kavel.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr RAU: Yes, but he is going to pass his baton to the member for Kavel in the new team, which would be, putatively, after the next election, headed by the member for Heysen. I got a bit distracted there, Madam Deputy Speaker, by members of the opposition.

To come back to the point, obviously all of us on this side of the house have no difficulty whatsoever with the resolution. We wish her well, inasmuch as you can wish an opposition leader well—but not wanting her to win an election, or win any seats from you—and we look forward to seeing how the team runs up to the next election. In the event that the predictions of the member for Kavel are correct and they do win the election, we very much look forward to the musical chairs, which will occur on 21 or 22 March.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:52): I, too, rise to congratulate the member for Heysen on her meteoric rise to become the first female leader of a major political party in South Australia. Even though I have been her political colleague only since 2006, I have admired the way she works, and note that she came to this august place in 2002. It is refreshing to see her attain the position of leader, and it is refreshing to see that it has been achieved on merit. Even her selection to this place was achieved on merit, and that is to be commended.

People of either gender, male or female, should have equal rights and equal opportunity to get to where they strive to be, whether it be in public life or their private life. Certainly, in the debates I have witnessed that have been led by the member for Heysen, involving legal bills and taking on the Attorney-General, she has impressed me with her candour and the way in which she manages those debates. It is great to see her rise to the leadership. She has hit the ground running, and I believe that she will make an excellent premier in 2010: indeed, 21 March 2010 will be a great day for all of us—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: —that's fine—when we come back to this place in power. With those few words, I salute the member for Heysen. I think she is doing a magnificent job.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:54): In concluding the debate, I sincerely thank those members who have made a contribution for their indications of support for the motion—support which is across the floor and across genders. That is welcomed and appreciated, and I look forward to the motion passing without dissent.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT