Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I thank the member for Cowan for moving this important motion. I also thank her for extending the hand of friendship, particularly over the last four weeks. It may not be apparent to those who look on to the political world, but it is quite possible for people who have different political views to actually be friends and like each other.

Last Friday, I had the honour of commemorating Edith Cowan at a roll call of organisations which Edith had either founded or was actively involved with throughout her life. As I stood at the memorial clock which was built in her honour at the entrance to Kings Park, I saw and met with representatives from organisations that continue to do so much good in our community—organisations like the RSPCA, Ngala, the Red Cross, the National Council of Women, the Karrakatta Club and Girl Guides. Edith Cowan's legacy is not confined to history; she does not sit silently on the back of the $50 note. Her story does not start and end with being the first woman elected to an Australian parliament. Edith's achievements, her voice and what she strove for continue to echo in our community today. We see it in women serving in parliaments across Australia. We see it in generations of children who were born safely at King Edward Memorial Hospital, and we see it in the women, like me, who were able to enter professions because of the passage of the Women's Legal Status Act.

One hundred years ago, Western Australia was still recovering from the effects of the First World War. Women had been granted the right to sit in parliament only in 1920. Edith's decision to run for the seat of West Perth was made only a month prior to the election. She faced harsh criticism for running for parliament, with many in the community viewing parliamentary representation as a man's job. Winning by just 46 votes, Edith put her success down to the support of women. In an interview two days after her election, she said:

I did not want to contest the election, and certainly would not have come out if it had not been for the earnestness with which the women asked me to. It was the loyalty of women to a woman that won the election for me, and it is in no way a personal success. It is a victory for them.

It would be four months following her election before Edith would deliver her maiden speech. The usual decorum and silence observed when a member delivers their maiden speech was dispensed with for Edith, with many of the male members in the House rudely interjecting throughout. Edith said in that speech:

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.

…   …   …

… it has been fairly proved in this House to-day that women can and do stand by women, and will stand by women in the future …

Edith would go on to say:

The views of both sides are more than ever needed in Parliament to-day. If men and women can work for the State side by side and represent all the different sections of the community, and if the male members of the House would be satisfied to allow women to help them and would accept their suggestions when they are offered, I cannot doubt that we should do very much better work in the community than was ever done before.

Edith was determined that she was not going to be a momentary parliamentary novelty; she was there to get things done. Her contributions throughout her three years in parliament would be many and varied, from advocating for mandatory registration and training for nurses, to supporting taxation incentives to create employment in the south-west. But Edith's time in parliament was also marked by constant derision by many in the parliament. In fact, the WA government didn't even want to undertake the work to put in a female bathroom at Parliament House because of the cost. This meant Edith would walk to her home nearby to use the bathroom. Yet Edith strove on as a strong voice and as a strong representative for her community. Edith was not afraid to call out the government when she thought they were getting a policy wrong or to make her voice heard on matters of importance.

In 1921, Edith was the only woman in the chamber, a sole voice in that place seeking to change how society saw the role of women in society. The job was tough, but so was she. She had to be. One hundred years later, the job of being a member of parliament is still tough, as are plenty of other jobs and professions. But surely the product of 100 years of progress should not see us still asking the question as to whether women are strong enough to do this job or, indeed, any other job. Surely what we should be questioning is whether the so-called toughness we are being called on to exhibit is justifiable, whether it is right or whether it serves any legitimate purpose at all. To want respect in a workplace, to want to be free from harassment or assault in your workplace—or in the world more generally—has nothing to do with whether you are tough enough. This is simply a prerequisite for a just and humane society.

Over the past few weeks, I have reflected, as I think many of us here have reflected, on the culture of this place and society more broadly. I have listened to the views and stories of many people from this place and others and I, like many, have been distressed, angered, despondent and conflicted. I have been reminded of the girl and young woman I once was. The one who was smart but wanted to be smarter; the one who had friends but wanted to be a cool girl; the one who spent years suffering from anorexia and depression because she wanted to be perfect and have full control; the one who did things, allowed things to be done to her and had things done to her that, quite simply, made her feel the shame that so many victims-survivors talk about.

One hundred years ago, as Edith fought to have the Women's Legal Status Bill passed, the question before parliamentarians was whether women should be allowed in the professions. Today the question must be: why is it that we still have workplaces where sexual harassment and assault exists? And why do we have workplaces where women still have to adapt their behaviour and adapt their mode of operating to get their work done and their voices heard? It is clear that there is a need for cultural change in society and in parliament. Women and men marching across Australia today are rightly demanding changes: changes that ensure people feel safe reporting incidents of sexual assault and harassment; changes that empower and ensure bystanders call out inappropriate behaviour when they see it; and changes to our processes and systems and even—dare I suggest it—to our criminal justice system, because it is clear that the status quo is inadequate in dealing with complaints and crimes of sexual assault and harassment. We must preserve the pillar of our justice system that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but we need to ensure that in so doing we do not re-traumatise victims-survivors and that we do not send mixed messages about whether they should come forward with their stories. There is a vacuum at the moment, one which is being filled in the most vile and unsatisfactory way, one which neither helps victims-survivors nor those who have been accused. Most importantly, we must change the types of behaviour and attitudes that lead to harassment and assault.

I recognise that in workplaces, particularly in politics, where the power hierarchies are so deeply embedded, it may be easier said than done to change the culture. This is why we as members in this place have to lead by example and reflect on our own behaviour. It is why we must listen to the voices of others, put aside our own inherent biases and prejudices and ways of thinking and engage in a truly genuine nonpartisan process, not one that is carried out via a polemical tit-for-tat or the vile anonymous sewer that inhabits vast portions of social media. We must refuse to accept that just because it has always been this way it should continue that way. Personally, I refuse to accept that an acceptable response to all of this is to suck it up, toughen up, move on. That may have been the way that I and others learnt to deal with things but, while this may work for some and on some issues, it does not serve everyone and it certainly doesn't lead to the change we need. To the next person who thinks about telling me or someone else to toughen up, suck it up or move on, I say: just don't. It's a special honour to serve in this place. As we go forward, let us do so with Edith Cowan's voice ringing in our ears and spurring us on to make real change.

See this speech in context