Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

About the Australian Human Rights Commission navigation

International Women's Day 1999

Speech by Susan Halliday, Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the International Women's Day Breakfast, Council of Equal Opportunity in Employment Ltd, 8 March 1999

International Women's Day is not a time for celebrating anything, but rather a day for anticipating all the struggles to come "when we may eventually and forever stamp out the last vestige of male egotism and his desire to dominate over women"

Lena Lewis, USA, 1910

Whether you refer to me as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, or "Head of the Gender Junkies living in cultural dream-time", a name I have acquired via a Sydney print media commentator, - or "big nagging nanny" - another name I have acquired thanks to a member of the public, who scrutinises my work and targets newspaper editors and the Prime Minister to have his say about what I'm doing - the reality is that I am in my current role required to take on board the consequences of Lena Lewis's concerns and indeed at times her struggles.

Tasked with increasing the Australian community's understanding and acceptance of, as well as adherence to, the federal Sex Discrimination Act, I encounter through my work those who are well versed in the letter and spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act - as well as significant number of people who lack an understanding of the basic first principles of equality. I also come into contact with those who have a naive grasp of the concept of human rights, and other members of society who quite simply don't care about the issues.

The federal Sex Discrimination Act as I'm sure many of you are aware, says thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy. It also prohibits sexual harassment, dismissal on the basis of family responsibilities and victimisation associated with any of these grounds.

The Act makes it clear that to live and work in an environment free of sex discrimination and sexual harassment is a human right - not a privilege.

The Act requires that I manage the complaints lodged, inform the AIRC when alerted to industrial relations based breaches of the Act and raise community awareness levels.

While men also face discrimination and harassment, some 85% of complaints lodged under the Sex Discrimination Act are made by, or on behalf of women. Over 80% of all complaints come from the area of employment.

Talking about employment, it is today that we reflect on the fact that over 140 years ago the first mass demonstration of women workers took place.

On 8 March in 1857 women in the garment and textile industry staged a protest against low wages, a 12 hour day, lack of equal pay and exclusion from voting.

International Women's Day (I W Day) was first proposed as an annual event, by German woman Clara Zetkin in 1911, and 16 years later in 1928 Australia's first I W Day rally took place.

In 1977 the UN formally called for all countries to celebrate the attainment of women's rights on 8 March and indeed many of us have much to celebrate - especially in this country.

Yet there are women around the world who are no better off today than they were a century ago, in fact there are those due to military, cultural and religious oppression who are worse off, many who face continued poverty, and thousands who live in constant fear of their personal safety while trying to protect their children.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to share I W Day with you, remembering the women and men who have struggled to improve the lives of women in this country and around the world, celebrating progress thus far and taking time to re-energise and plan for future efforts.

Edith Cowan, the first Australian women elected to Parliament in 1921, used her term to promote women's rights. A mother of five children she was committed to social reform. Involved in many community organisations, Edith was instrumental in the establishment of the Children's Court and the King Edward Hospital for Women.

Her first speech (some would call it a 'maiden' speech - but I'll refrain) to the West Australian Parliament included references to planning, the price of mutton, the necessity of a clean water supply, improvements in the basic wage, and the importance of a child and maternity endowment.

Finding herself in the unique position of being the first women in an Australian Parliament she noted

"It is a great responsibility to be the only woman here, and I want to emphasise the necessity which exists for other women being here"

Even today of the 225 federal parliamentarians, less than a quarter of them are women.

On reform Edith said

"I hope that when the government again bring in the Architects Bill they will make it easier for women to become architects. We shall never have satisfactory homes and government buildings until women have a voice in planning them."
I also suggest that we should have a woman on the Price Fixing Commission. At present mutton is sold wholesale at Brunswick from 4 to 5 pence a pound. That is what the grower gets. Yet we in the city have to pay one shilling per pound.

and in protest of a Government policy charging one shilling for every perambulator put on a railway train

"the Minister for Railways should be made to parade the streets of Perth for the whole of one afternoon with a heavy infant on one arm and a bag of groceries on the other - it will serve to draw the Minister's attention to the very great handicap which is placed upon mothers who wish to come into town to do some shopping and who cannot bring a perambulator, for the simple reason that they cannot afford to pay the railway fee of one shilling. It may be suggested that the fee was imposed with a view to inducing mothers to stay at home. I do not think it will have that effect - those mothers do not feel very kindly disposed towards the Government."

Edith, was an advocate of a motherhood endowment, she defended the idea of a housewives or homemakers union, (and I don't think she had the "women who want to be real women" and "mothers who want to be real mothers" models in mind.

She pushed for sex education to be taught in state schools. (I would like to note at this point in time that we still have schools in Australia, predominantly attended by girls, in receipt of government funding that do not provide adequate basic sex education).

As a private member she introduced the Women's Legal Status Act in 1923 which opened the legal profession to women.

Yet in the history of the High Court of Australia, only one woman has sat on its bench, Justice Mary Gaudron.

While we have made much progress with equal numbers of women and men studying a number of disciplines including law, equivalent numbers being educated and employed for some time now has not resulted in significant numbers of women progressing through the system to senior powerful roles. It's not about leaving work to have children - because these women really don't leave work as such - if they have children it is often one, sometimes two and their time out of work is minimal. It's the cultural barriers and traditional mindsets that continue to limit and stifle their opportunities to progress - in fact based on the current rate of progress, despite equivalent numbers being educated and employed in many disciplines, it appears it will take a further 177 years before we actually see a reflection of these numbers in senior roles.

People often ask me what I'm going to do at the conclusion of my 3 year appointment; at this stage I think I'll be moving into a line of work that pursues longevity of life so that in 177 years I have the personal opportunity to see if on IW Day in the year 2175 we're on track.

While I'm sure we all recognise that as a nation we have achieved much with respect to women's rights, especially over more recent decades in terms of eliminating discrimination against women, I W Day is also about, in the words of Lena Lewis, "anticipating the struggles to come."

This is relevant to us nationally and internationally - Australia has always been regarded as a progressive nation in terms of our commitment to human rights, our legislation and the processes we have initiated to manage women's issues. In particular, our legislation rather than that of other nations, has and continues to be adopted across the globe.

We need to remember though that it wasn't an easy path to follow and many fought long and hard to gain what others take for granted.

We need only to look back to the early 1980's when the federal Sex Discrimination Act was proposed. One of the longest debated, and most passionately contested Bills ever to go through the Commonwealth Parliament, the objections to the proposed Sex Discrimination Bill included that it defied nature, that it would destroy the family, greatly devalue women's traditional role and push women into the workforce against their will.

That the debated Bill was passed, was in itself, a victory. And the women and men who pushed so hard for it should be congratulated - we owe them much.

Some 15 years on the Sex Discrimination Act continues to operate well, providing guidance and redress for thousands.

While there are those in Australia who'd be very comfortable returning to previous eras when the broader community supported and encouraged men's dominance over women, (treating them as non-thinking dependant possessions) and those in the community who believe my role damages society, the regular stream of complaints that cross my desk indicate otherwise - we have the legislation and the role of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner for a purpose. Both are still necessary.

This view is confirmed by my work and consultations with state and territory anti-discrimination agencies, the daily media and the wealth of anecdotal information people choose to share with me.

Talking about the media - I have recently been focussing some attention on the starting point of employment, ie the recruitment process.

Stereotypical assumptions and traditional social roles and values continue to be imposed on people looking for work, denying job seekers of both gender a level playing field, irrespective of their skill levels, experience, qualifications and interest in the area of work advertised.

Let me read you the texts of a few job advertisements printed in the media over recent weeks - remembering that to discriminate or demonstrate an intent to discriminate when advertising publicly has been illegal for 15 years:

Written by a well known recruitment agency, the following two examples were published in a Sydney magazine:

He's a Senior Partner who's distinguished, dashing and always charming. You're a legal secretary who loves an easy going boss, especially one who's a True Gentleman. He's the director of many prominent international companies desperately seeking some assistance. You're poised to take the next step towards a more lucrative career, liasing with clients and being in demand. The match is made even more perfect by your love of "Big Ticket" Commercial Litigation.

It's the thought of working for a Partner who's straight down the line, incredibly dynamic and a real scream that will get you out of bed each day. Its also the thought of a Top5 law firm, a true PA role and the great relationship you'll share with this partner that will keep you on your toes craving for more. With your service oriented attitude and need for a fast paced energetic environment, you'll be perfect.

So what is it they are advertising for?

The male and female heterosexual stereotypes dominate the ads, and the sexuality that permeates the ads speaks for itself!!

Written and published by a newspaper in Queensland:

"Job vacancy
Part time position

We have a part-time position on our staff for a woman who is self-motivated, keen to learn and likes a bit of variety in her work. The ideal person we are looking for is a woman aged 35-50 - who has reared her family and now she is bored staying at home all day. She has honed up her skills as a typist and refreshed her knowledge of simple bookkeeping. She would have also bitten the bullet and done a TAFE course or similar on computers. She is now computer literate. If you have the above skills or similar, plus a pleasant personality and a good sense of humour then give us a call on Friday, Monday, Tuesday for an appointment. We would like to talk to you."

Written by an employer, this ad was published in a Victorian regional newspaper:

"We need junior maids to assist our senior maids with domestic duties"

This ad appeared on a noticeboard at a supermarket:

"Wanted - a young mum who is looking for part-time work to support hubbies income"

The response to my recent launch of a brochure detailing the requirements associated with drafting and publishing job ads under the federal Sex Discrimination Act, has been extremely revealing.

There was a significant level of interest from the press in the brochure, which is part of an on-going education campaign. The consequences of extensive press lead me to fully support Lena Lewis's view that "we still have struggles before us". To this very day her quote depicts an accurate picture, let me demonstrate.

I received a letter from a businessman with businesses in Australia and PNG. He stated

"Sadly if media reports are to be believed you are blindly pursuing an extremist, sexist thread which you and your masters think will bring about equality.

I own and manage four Companies and state right now that I refuse point blank to comply with such unreasonable interference in my affairs.

It is my choice - nobody else - not yours nor the government to dictate to me otherwise.

If I seek a left handed, blond haired, brown skinned beautiful woman of X dimensions to do a task [NB: and he doesn't mention what the task is] - I will so seek and so advertise, for it is me who is paying - this despite anything you do to force me to comply with your social engineering experiments. If it means sacking everybody and hurting their families - so be it - it is of your doing.

With the so called global economy and government priorities in this direction - it is easy for me to provide employment, taxation revenue and other benefits to - say -Philippines or ??

Your efforts are substantial and permanently damaging Australia - you are doing well - feel proud."

Diligent independent commissioners, remunerated via the public purse, answer all their correspondence and while I 'm not going to share my initial response to this letter with you, I'm currently drafting the response I'll send. I plan to note that:

A major object of the Sex Discrimination Act is to ensure that all potential job applicants with appropriate skill, experience and interest have an equal opportunity to actually apply for work. To this end the Act actually creates and broadens employment opportunities - rather than denying them on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics.

I will add that:

As someone who has spent many years in the private sector, and in turn recruited many employees, I am of the considered view that when looking for an office manager, for example, advertising for a female who is "left handed, blond haired, brown skinned beautiful (and) of X dimensions" is likely to severely diminish your potential pool of applicants, based on criteria that have nothing to do with an ability to manage the office and support staff.

Finally I think I'll point out that

there is no reason why his ad would not be well received in the Personal Ads section of a newspaper where it is perfectly legal to state the physical characteristics and personal criteria you seek. And indeed it's not overly important in the Personal Ads section to specify the task you want performed.

Another letter I received from the chairman of a small finance consulting company stated

"Have you ever realised the stupidity of a law which requires an employer to invite applications from persons some of whom being outside particular categories .. who have no chance of being selected. What this law requires is that an employer, who considers a female junior is best suited for the available position to invite applications from a larger cross section of people. thereby raising false expectations - .. It seems to me that the legislation creates as much mischief as it seeks to eradicate."

Then there was an interesting piece delivered energetically to an audience of approx 190,000 people, by Alan Jones in mid February:

[NB: exact transcript from radio read to audience]

For legal reasons I have no other comment to make; the transcript speaks for itself. It is worth noting at this stage however that Section 95 of the Sex Discrimination Act says:

"A person shall not insult, hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with a person exercising a power or performing a function under this Act."

There are those who tell me quite openly that I need to recognise that "when you want a bloke - you want a bloke".

Then there was an interesting letter in the Canberra Times late last year

Feminism To Blame For Child Abuse

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare announced 31,707 cases of child abuse - a 6% increase.

Arnold Jago of Mildura wrote "should we be surprised ? In a society where parents can legally have their unborn baby killed, its no surprise when born children get treated in a brutal fashion too. Our feminist pro-abortion brigade are the ones to thank for the bashed child epidemic."

Moving along - We still have issues in this country, pay equity is a serious one.

Why is it that maritime workers and miners are paid more than nurses ?

Whether we are governed by industrial systems that are highly regulated or more recently designed deregulated systems, is actually irrelevant - as neither system has successfully divorced gender from job role - as evidenced by the recent NSW Pay Equity Inquiry outcome and the HPM equal pay case findings.

And there are a series of cases similar to HPM presently being listed for scrutiny.

As yet we have not achieved equal pay for work of comparable value and worth - and despite what the head of the NSW Employers Federation has been regularly reported saying since the outcome of the NSW Pay Equity Inquiry - I am of the view that you do not need a male comparitor to actually determine the value and worth of a particular job.

Just imagine if I demanded the reverse - we can't determine job value and worth unless we have a female comparitor - the absurdity of such a suggestion becomes obvious.

I would like to make a few comments from an international perspective.

Australia is among the many nations who have signed the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Australia signed CEDAW in July 1980.

However, the act of signing a convention does not automatically make it law within Australia, it must be incorporated into domestic law via our parliamentary process - which is what we did through the introduction of the federal Sex Discrimination Act.

But we need to ask ourselves, what good are rights when we cannot require others to respect them, or enforce them.

It is important here to emphasise what rights actually are. Rights are not merely privileges granted by the elected government of the day. They are a fundamental part of being alive. They belong to us as human beings because we were born and they are essential for our survival.

For example, CEDAW states that women have the right:

These are not privileges to be granted and taken away according to the political sentiment of the day; they are rights that inherently belong to all women.

However, let me use the example of Afghanistan to show how easily such rights can be removed.

The government of Afghanistan signed CEDAW in August 1980. The country then suffered a devastating civil war.

Today, the Taleban effectively govern the country. Reports indicate that they have imposed extremely repressive laws, effectively excluding women from all public life. Women and girls are restricted to their homes, banned from working and banned from education or leaving their homes unaccompanied by a male relative. Women are beaten, tortured and detained for breaking these laws.

I do not take a position on who is the valid government of Afghanistan. What I am saying, is that all governments have a fundamental obligation to adhere to the human rights of women, particularly those that are signatories to CEDAW. This also applies to those governments that support the policies of the Taleban through the supply of weapons and/or political support.

Perhaps a less extreme case - but equally as disturbing is the judicial ruling in Rome several weeks ago, that a woman cannot be raped if she is wearing jeans. The reason being that she would have had to assist the alleged rapist in removing her jeans and therefore the sex would have had to have been consensual. It was also noted that, since there is nothing worse for a woman than to be raped, the sex must have been consensual as no woman would have allowed herself to be raped.

Italy too is a signatory to CEDAW. However, it has a history of rape protection laws that many question. Until as recently as two years ago, a defendant could avoid punishment for a charge of rape by marrying the victim (to remove the shame on her family) or by proving that she had had other sexual experiences.

While new rape laws enacted in 1996 could have done away with such attitudes, only 10 of the 420 judges on the Italian Supreme Court, are women. I am of the view that the male judges who made this ruling can have no understanding of how a victim thinks, how paralysing the fear of rape can be, or any idea of the coercion that may lead to submission without real consent.

The human rights in CEDAW set out to prevent such outcomes, on this occasion failed to do so.

And let me remind you that in a number of countries the birth of a girl-child equates to misfortune to this very day.

And that it was only very recently that rape was officially recognised as a war crime.

And that as a result of the 1994 Rwandan massacres a Ugandan farmer hired to fish out bodies floating down Lake Victoria, retrieved a woman who had five small children tied to her body - one to each limb and one to her back - no other wounds - they had been thrown in to drown.

This is reality for thousands of women.

There is an important message here - and the message is that while women have had an extensive set of human rights documented, their enforcement can be weak and fickle.

While the Taleban are unlikely to ever rule Australia - we have witnessed over recent years Australian politicians calling for the abolition of laws that prevent an employer from discriminating on the basis of gender in recruitment.

More recently, the Queensland Young Liberals made public their intention to debate whether women breastfeeding in non-designated public areas should be given on the spot fines.

Both of these policies are blatant breaches of CEDAW - and I'm pleased to say not supported by any Australian I've every come into contact with.

Lena Lewis would no doubt be disappointed (but possibly not surprised) that on entry to the 21st century there is still much to do. I'm sure she would draw comfort however from the many Australian women and men committed to pursuing her goals of equality and justice.

I'm sure she would also be proud to have read the words of Australian girls recently published in a book called Girls Talk:

The 14 year old said

Some men still take advantage of women in awful ways. Women have to understand that it is not their fault.

The 16 year old said

The choices have to become less about gender rules or the set of genitals you have and much more about individual need and desires.

The 12 year old said

In computer games its always the boyfriend who has to rescue his girlfriend from the baddies - this makes it look like women are weak and always need men to save them.

I believe this young girl's point was nothing other than I can save myself thank you very much!

Last updated 1 December 2001