It gives me great pleasure to speak to an association that I have been a member of for 30 years.
Having navigated the legal profession and now politics I can say without fear of contradiction that I come from two great traditions that have historically been dominated by men: the law and politics.
Thirty years continuous practice and more recently, in the glare of public office, I believe qualifies me to share with you my perspective on the battle for equality in the professions and more generally for economic independence and social equality of women.
The starting point for our discussion this morning is an unassailable preposition: that the full participation of women in the social, commercial and economic life of our nation is good policy.
Australia is a relatively small nation and we live in a competitive world at perhaps the most precarious time in our history. It is true to say that unless we make the most of all of our resources, especially the talent residing in more than 50% of the population, we will struggle to stay in the game.
It is incumbent on governments, business and the community to ensure that women have opportunities to meet their full potential and that the choices we make are real and not illusory.
I would hope it is the view of all Australians that anyone talented enough, committed enough and determined enough to pursue their full potential should have that opportunity - no matter their gender, their religion, or the colour of their skin or whether they wear a veil to work or prefer to wear stilettos.
Women and the Economy
Paradoxically women are participating in the labour market at the highest rates in history.
Australia was a pioneer country in bringing about the vote for women and we were at the forefront of developing sex discrimination legislation.
Those early legislative measures were crucial to the advancement of women in our society. Women can now expect to have greater economic independence than ever before.
We now expect and get promotions, pay rises, and redress where our rights are infringed.
Since 1978 the labour force market participation rate has climbed from around 43 per cent to 55 per cent in 2002. And the outlook is for this participation rate to rise.
The economic growth of recent years has created more jobs. Under this Government, since 1996, the number of women in full time and part time jobs has grown by more than half a million.
The gap between men's and women's salaries is narrowing.
Since 1983 average fulltime earnings for women have consistently grown faster than those for men. Since 1996, this trend towards closing the gap has accelerated, with earnings in some industries growing more than one per cent faster than those for men. At 85% of average weekly ordinary time earnings, we are still behind but women are continuing to gain.
Women and public office
Women are still not as prolific in the public eye as heads of industry, senior public servants or in high profile management positions as we might expect.
Despite the huge leaps forward for women in law, medicine and politics, relatively few women are in real leadership positions. Fewer still have the professional recognition and public profile they deserve. We have covered important ground by getting more women into the workforce, but it has been a long time coming and we have not yet truly staked our claim.
It is pleasing to know that the representation of women in the Commonwealth Parliament is nearly double the international average.
There are 60 women in the Commonwealth Parliament which represents 26.5 per cent - an increase from 14 per cent in 1995 - while the international average is 15 per cent. In a truly bi-partisan sense, I am proud of the fine contribution our women politicians are making to national debate.
Women are also increasingly contributing to high-level decision making in Government. As at June 2002, women now occupy 33.9 per cent of positions on Commonwealth boards, up from 30.5 per cent in 1995. This is no accident, but rather represents the determined efforts of those of us doing the appointing to identify and promote able women.
In the Commonwealth public service, women are doing well, in 2002 making up over 28% of the senior executive service (or senior management) positions and with 25 women having been appointed as Heads of Australian Foreign Missions since 1996. Currently, 9 women hold Head of Mission and 2 women hold Head of Posts positions.
Private sector
In the private sector, traditionally a male oriented domain, a recent Census tells us that women hold 8.2 per cent of Board directorships in 152 companies assessed. This is still low and compares with 9.8 per cent reported in Canada and 12.4 per cent in the most recent US Census.
The Census also found that women hold only 8.4% of executive management positions in the companies considered - which compared with 15.7% of corporate officer positions in US companies considered in a similar census.
In small business, where female ingenuity and intelligence pays off, 33 per cent of Australia's small business operators are women. This is a particularly interesting statistic and appears to be a trend that, if anything, will continue to grow as women often choose options that offer them flexibility to meet the needs of family and other priorities.
Do women still face glass ceilings?
So, if women are participating in the workforce at the highest rates in Australian history, why is it that the barriers to advancement remain so entrenched, especially in the law and in politics?
The recent Victorian survey found empirically what we all suspected; that women barristers are chronically under represented at the Victorian Bar and on the record in court appearances. Perhaps more concerning is the fact that women become almost invisible in complex cases.
The report found that women barristers were involved in only 13.79 per cent of court appearances in 2001 and 2002, even though women barristers made up 17.6% and 18.6% in their relevant years.
I see that in New South Wales, Women Lawyers are doing some scoping work on this issue, which may also include a survey. And my feeling, as no doubt the majority here would agree, is that any New South Wales survey would reflect the results in Victoria.
Judged by the numbers above, women solicitors appear to fare somewhat better than women at the Bar, now gaining partnerships in major law firms in sufficient numbers to warrant the adoption of maternity and family leave policies.
But this merely a symptom of balancing work and family and does not address the systemic causes preventing the full participation of women in the legal profession.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that women practising law have achieved that mythical work and family balance - that they have down pat the inevitable trade off between juggling a career, rearing a family, caring for older members of their family - whilst maintaining personal relationships. What then? Would this be the silver bullet to success?
Sadly I think not. This is because the barriers are far more subtle.
It used to be called the "glass ceiling" where everything appears neutral but there is an invisible barrier preventing advancement.
Another way to describe this subtle barrier is the "double brick wall" where the only way to go is sideways to gain experience and serve time.
I have also heard this phenomenon described as "sticky steps", glass ceilings at different levels to make it difficult to advance at a reasonable pace.
Or could it be better described as "gluey chairs", where a woman is so good at her present job that everyone wants her to stay there.
This is the scenario where an enthusiastic senior partner says "She's so good we would be lost without her" in sharp distinction to the promising young male where the rhetoric goes something like this "He's so damn good, we'll have to make him partner in order to keep him".
If this is correct it is simply not going to be sufficient to have a critical mass of women legal professionals providing a body of expertise and redefining the workplace on their own terms. The numbers of women at the Victorian Bar and the disproportionate volume of work they attract disproves the trickle down theory.
Efforts to promote women in the legal profession thus far have been well meaning but passive.
If we are really serious about full participation of women, governments, professional bodies, firms and business more broadly need an attitudinal change. This will require a more proactive approach than simply levelling the playing field and expecting women miraculously to win the ruck and kick a goal. Inevitably some will but most won't and it's a tragic waste of both talent and potential.
What to do?
Let's start with government. All governments require legal advice and frequently brief Counsel for opinions and representation in Court. Public sector agencies frequently seek legal advice from private firms and need to brief Counsel. Large businesses are frequent purchasers of legal services.
All of these sources provide a rich vein of work for firms and for barristers.
The question is, how could this work be allocated more equitably?
Undoubtedly firms undertaking government or agency work could be required, as a condition of getting this work, to abide by an equal opportunity briefing policy. Professional representative bodies could develop and maintain registers of available women, experienced or willing to take on work in a desired field.
A good starting point for women wishing to do commercial work is to at least get good junior brief. Complex cases are often long and difficult and are as challenging in interlocutory stages and preparation as they are in final hearing.
These cases teach case management, often involve novel questions and if nothing else, will teach endurance. What is more important is that you will get to appear in superior courts and heaven forbid may even get noticed in the media.
Often barristers who have been in a trial are not available on an appeal and there are opportunities to develop appellate expertise.
Injunctions and interlocutory hearings require someone on the spot and ready to do the work.
I'm sure there would be an army of bright, qualified women to do this work if only those doing the briefing were encouraged or required to look for them.
From my experience, nothing induces behavioural changes like incentive. In this case there would be real commercial advantages for firms that promote the advancement of women, not only at the Bar but from within their own organisations.
If government departments, public sector and large organisations choose law firms that can demonstrate a commitment to allocating a fair proportion of work and fees to qualified women, I suspect there will be a dramatic surge in the profile of women doing significant legal work.
I know that consideration of how to develop careers of women at the Bar have exercised the minds of many excellent people in sections of the Bar Council and of course Women Lawyers who, historically, have played an important part in providing a start for a young women each year by allocating a room in chambers.
My suggestion to you, the Women Lawyers, the Law Society of New South Wales and the Bar Association, is to develop the infrastructure or plan for a workable model briefing policy to promote the visibility of women at the Bar, and to promote some transparency in briefing patterns.
If you do this, at the Commonwealth Government level I will promote the adoption of an appropriate equitable briefing policy within the departments and agencies for which I have ministerial responsibility.
I will also raise the plan with the Attorney General and other portfolio ministers whose departments are prolific sources or work.
Rather than trying to change to fit someone else's sterotype, let's change the way that work is allocated. For that we need to go to the source of the work.
As the American essayist John Burroughs said:
The lesson which life repeats and constantly enforces is 'look under foot.' You are always nearer the divine and the true sources of your power than you think.
Reminding us that opportunities are often close and there are rewards for those who see and take them.
I have titled my remarks today "The rise and rise of women" because despite indications to the contrary, I remain optimistic about the prospects of women in the law. In case you are sceptical about how far we have come, let me conclude with a couple of true stories about the late, great Dame Roma Mitchell.
When Roma Mitchell, one of the great South Australians, was appointed to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, Sir Mellis Napier, who was in his eighties, seems to have been taken by surprise.
His immediate reaction was that all members of the court must be addressed and referred to without distinction, and that Roma would be known as "Mr Justice Mitchell."
History doesn't reveal her response on this occasion but it does reveal her sense of humour when challenged about her marital status.
During an interview in her early years of the Supreme Court, Roma Mitchell was asked by a brash journalist "you are not married?" "I am not". "And you do not drive a car?" "I do not". Undeterred by the terseness of the replies, the journalist pressed on: "The Chief Justice, Dr. Bray, is also unmarried. Is there any chance that the two of you might get together?" "No", Roma replied, "that would be no good at all. He doesn't drive a car either."