Senator STOTT DESPOJA (Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats) (10:11 PM) — I rise tonight to talk about quite a significant publication which I was honoured to contribute to but, more importantly, launch today. It is a book entitled Women in uniform: perceptions and pathways, co-edited by two women, Kathryn Spurling and Elizabeth Greenhalgh. The book has been published by the School of History, University College of the University of New South Wales because the co-editors were unable to find a publisher willing to take on the publication of such a worthy book. The book arises out of a very successful conference held in Canberra in May last year. The conference was entitled `Women in uniform: perceptions and pathways' and the book draws together the proceedings of that conference. I delivered the Clare Burton Memorial Address at the conference dinner, and I remember being quite intrigued so see workshop headlines such as `From CDF to Xena'. Anyone who has an interest in such interestingly titled workshops or indeed the broad range of chapters in this book is well advised to read it.

The book is certainly the first of its type in Australia—the first to address the issue of women in the armed forces, police and fire departments and to detail the resistance these women have faced in seeking professional equity. The essays in Women in uniform also reflect the collective and individual perceptions and experiences of women in many different uniforms across the globe. The experiences range from women fighting national wars of liberation in South Africa and Namibia, women who are firefighters or FBI agents in the United States of America and women who have chosen to walk the beat of the English bobbies. Women in uniform looks at pathways for these women in their chosen professions. The book provides several snapshots of the attitudes of outside groups and institutions towards these women in uniform and in doing so takes an important step towards opening up the dialogue with the broader women's movement. I could not help but notice that many of the experiences, themes and messages of Women in uniform also apply to women in other non-traditional areas—themes such as chilly climates, a lack of promotion because of marriage or motherhood, the tyranny of workplaces which are not family friendly, the absence of support networks and the critical mass women need for cultural change, and the emphasis of appearance over performance. All these are too-common barriers presented to women in professional life, as is the tendency for cultural reform to lag well behind legislative reform for equity in the workplace. These themes are echoed in many areas where women have not traditionally have been involved. I am sure that many of my colleagues here would perhaps suggest that that has been the case for a non-traditional area for women such as the parliament.

I note that Australia has recently taken a significant step in relation to the achievement of gender equity, particularly in relation to the military. I refer, of course, to the decision coinciding with International Women's Day by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. That was in relation to removing the reservation against allowing women to participate in combat related duties. According to the announcement, although women have already been performing duties related to combat, they are still not allowed to fight in direct combat duties. The reason given at the time by the minister, Senator Newman, was that this is ADF policy. I think it is interesting that the ADF should make policy that is adhered to by the minister. I would have thought that the government should be making policy and that the ADF should be subordinate to that.

But that is not the most interesting aspect of that particular IWD announcement. Late last year at the suitability of the Australian Army for peacetime, peacekeeping and war committee hearing, the Chief of the Army stated that it was true that if women could not serve in combat units they would not have the opportunity to aspire to be promoted to the top level of the Army. The International Women's Day announcement may be cold comfort to some women who are ambitious in the Army, but it probably means that at least there will be some official recognition of women involved in combat related duties and possibly some extra promotional opportunities.

In reality, though, the future for promotion for women in the Army is still not good, although the situation has slowly improved. I acknowledge the presence at today's launch of Ms Julie Hammer. Last year Ms Hammer became the first woman to achieve the rank of Air Commodore in the Royal Australian Air Force. In fact, Ms Hammer is the first woman in the Australian military to achieve the equivalent of one star general rank. At the time of her appointment, the Democrats, the only party with a female leader and female deputy leader, acknowledged this great achievement. We congratulated not only Ms Hammer but also the ADF on taking the first steps towards breaking the glass ceiling. We hope to see many women in the military follow in her footsteps.

Returning to some of the content of the previously mentioned book, avid viewers of the X-Files will be thrilled to discover that Women in uniform features the experiences of FBI Special Agent Susan Curtis—a real life Dana Scully. As fans of the show would be aware, Special Agent Dana Scully is not only a medical doctor with a speciality in forensics but also a firm believer in reason, which some might say directly contrasts with her male colleague. I would like to think that Agent Scully is perhaps a modern reflection of the FBI. Do not look so confused, Senators Heffernan and McGauran.

I would hope that she is a modern representation of the FBI. But, in reality, had Scully been modelled on the FBI culture of yesterday, as detailed by Susan Curtis, she would not have qualified as a special agent at all. Regardless of her medical or her academic qualifications, she would not have got in because she was not the requisite height. She was not five foot seven inches tall. For one thing, at five foot three inches, she would not make the prohibitive height requirements. It is true that, for many years after legislative reform, a height requirement that potential agents be at least five foot seven inches precluded many women from applying.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Ignore the interjections, please.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —I know the truth is out there, but I did not realise that Senator McGauran was as well. Susan Curtis found that, despite the fact that a law had been passed saying that the prohibitive height requirement for women had gone, it was still on the application forms. This book details international experience, so it talks about how it took 64 years for a woman to get into the FBI—there are a number of reasons for this—even after special legislation was passed. In fact, it took a law suit and a death to open the doors for women to work in the FBI.

Senator Heffernan —J. Edgar Hoover had it good.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —And this was due in no small part to J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI for over 30 years. He did not support the role of women as special agents. His ability to exclude them, despite legislative and broader reforms, demonstrates the enormous power that gatekeepers have in these institutions. It is extraordinary to think that the role of women in the military is actually a subject of mirth for senators opposite. Still, perhaps this means they will read the book because they are interested.

One of the major differences between women in non-traditional professions breaking the glass ceiling and climbing the ladder of success, if you like, and women in the military has been, perhaps, a lack of involvement or not the same level of support from women in the women's movement. I am glad to see, as evidenced in the chapters in the book, and in particular the one by Anne Summers, that this is now changing. I am cognisant of the comments of Kathryn Spurling, a co-author of the book, that women in uniform, until recently, have been attacked from all sides. She talks about the Bruce Ruxtons, if you like, of the world on one side suggesting that women who wish to serve their country might be hairy legged feminist types. But, more often than not, women are pitted against other women. So feminists tend to be pitted against those women who choose to serve, particularly by the media.

It is notoriously difficult for women to get good or accurate press when it comes to their service. Judith Youngman actually talks about this in the book and the stereotype of Rosie the Riveter, who, of course, came to personify the experiences of women in America—the 400,000 women who were citizens serving in uniform during the Second World War, including those women who were killed in the European and Pacific theatres of war. She talks about how unrealistic this particular image is for a variety of reasons.

The book talks about the belief that women are better at making love or babies but not war. It challenges some of those stereotypes that women are simply here to sustain and to nurture life, not necessarily to take it. I am sure that is a debate that would press many `hot buttons', as Congresswomen Pat Shroeder said when she was investigating issues facing women in the military in the US. I will end on that note. I share the congresswoman's shame when she discovered that the US military's provisions for women's sanitation needs during the Gulf War—we are talking about the 1990s—was based on the needs, literally, of women in the 1940s. So they were not getting tampons; they were getting sanitary provisions that related to the 1940s. Imagine if the US Army had done that with men serving during the Gulf War. They would have been getting Lucky Strike cigarettes and Brylcream. So it goes to show how out of date some of the US provisions were for women in the military. (Time expired)