The aim of the Women Into Politics September 1996 Symposium was to explore how we might use legal and electoral avenues to remove barriers to women's equal representation in our parliaments, especially the Federal Parliament. Otherwise women might have to spend their political energies on lobbying for another 100 years, without adequate control of their destinies!
This marked a change in strategic direction for Women Into Politics. After several years of working at documenting the rationale, awareness raising, education, and persuasion, we finally heard some acceptable rhetoric from some powerful males in the political parties, but it was not followed up with action to ensure equal representation in parliament for women.
Women seem to feel that the time for attempts at polite persuasion of those in power has passed. In 1996, 80 percent of federal parliamentarians are still men, and a path for speedy reform is needed to change this.
The Women Into Politics Symposium was a great success. New ideas, information and strategies were canvassed in the thoughtful papers delivered by people with some of the best female brains in the country, and women travelled to Canberra from most states. Women from all political parties and many organisations attended.
The ideas presented were complex and should be read again at leisure in order to appreciate the strategies indicated. Much ground was covered in one day, so question time was minimal. However, because of the feeling of goodwill emanating from the participants and the general perception that we were present together at the beginning of a new phase of our struggle, it was a memorable occasion. Our thanks go to all who contributed so much so well.
At the time of the Symposium, the need for equal representation for women was dramatically illustrated Men yet another suggestion for the removal of funding of abortions under Medicare came under discussion. After representations from Senator Harridine, the Minister for Foreign Affairs had decreed that no foreign aid should be spent on abortions and $3.5m earmarked for family planning was axed. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church launched its challenge to the legality of abortion by gaining leave to intervene in a High Court case. (Later the case was settled out of court.) The anger of women who heard of these events was intense.
Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, Keynote speaker at the Symposium, said that the issue of women's representation had been a recurring source of women's dissatisfaction and discontent ever since Federation, a dissatisfaction shared by women of all political persuasions; that the vote for women had not been translated into political power; that education and persuasion had failed to secure equal representation for women; that Australian Governments had failed to honour their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), had failed to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination in the political and public life of the country', and that until there were sufficient numbers of women among the law makers, the issue of abortion and choice for women would not go away. Dame Beryl had been instrumental in having the Fraser government sign CEDAW and in the introduction of Medicare funding for abortions.
Kim Rubenstein, Lecturer in Law at Melbourne University, said that while the Constitution provides for representative and responsible democracy, women are not adequately represented, and that the executive and the political parties have not exercised their responsibilities by extending affirmative action to cover the political parties. Two options for women were raised: that the judges who interpret the Constitution might be asked through a High Court challenge to declare the current electoral system unconstitutional or a referendum be called to make explicit the right to equal representation for women; and that the need was urgent to lobby to ensure that the mechanisms set in place by the federal government for the 1997 People's Convention were such as to include women equally with men, or else women will to be excluded yet again.
Dr Jocelynne Scutt, barrister, said that women late last century during the pre-Federation debates were making demands very much as women are now-including for freedom from violence, and from unwanted pregnancies. Their goals had not been achieved, and if women had had the vote the Constitution might have been a vastly different document, but women were excluded from voting on Federation by their exclusion from voting in all states except SA and WA. The Australian Constitution became a states' rights document, silent on women's rights and human rights generally. Dr Scutt indicated that it was time to work for a woman-friendly Constitution.
The Hon Elizabeth Evatt, member of the UN Human Rights Committee and previously a member of the UN Committee on CEDAW, outlined various international Covenants to which Australia is a party, particularly the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and especially the relevant (CEDAW) Articles M 8 requiring signatory governments to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country. She discussed the merits of an Equality Act, to which all Commonwealth legislation would be subject, or a preamble to the Constitution, or a Bill of Rights, as different means by which Australia could meet its obligations. Her paper then outlined legal remedies open to women to redress their lack of parliamentary representation.
Ms Sue Walpole, Sex Discrimination Commissioner, outlined the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA), indicating that the political parties and the political process were exempt from the Act on the basis that the political parties are deemed to be private organisations under the legislation as it stands. Her paper suggests that even if the SDA were amended to cover political parties and the political process, the fact that it is accessed by individual complaints makes it unlikely to be of great benefit in redressing inequality in the political process.
Associate Professor Marian Sawer, Canberra University, outlined some types of electoral systems, the advantages and disadvantages of various electoral models and their ability to result in more women being elected to parliament. She drew on both overseas models and Australian models and precedents. She concluded that a 'favourable' electoral system, such as proportional representation, does not guarantee equal representation, but that single member constituency systems disadvantage women, minority groups and minority parties. An adversarial political culture which is alien to many women is fostered by single member constituencies, and 'unfortunately major parties have a vested interest in their retention'.
Marie Andrew, Aboriginal lawyer, and Angela Chan, a lawyer and Chairperson of the NSW Ethnic Communities Council, outlined some of the priorities of their communities, and while they did not suggest avenues for redress they made passionate pleas for an. inclusive society.
(Reprinted, with permission, from the Women Into Politics Newsletter, October 1996. Conference papers are available at $15 (incl. post). Contact: Women Into Politics Inc, PO Box 1144, North Sydney, 2060. Phone/Fax: (02) 9437 6916.)
WISENET is a member of the coalition of women's groups, Women into Politics.