Enid
Lyons (9.7.1897 -
2.9.1981)
United
Australia Party, Darwin, Tasmania
served in the
Parliament from 21 August 1943
until 19 March 1951
GOVERNOR-GENERAL S
SPEECH ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
29 September
1943
Dame ENID
LYONS (Darwin) [8.0]. It would be strange indeed were I
not tonight deeply conscious of the fact, if not a little awed by
the knowledge, that my shoulders rests a great weight of
responsibility; because this is the first occasion upon which a
woman has addressed this house. For that reason it is an occasion
which, for every woman in the Commonwealth, marks in some degree a
turning point in history. I am well aware that, as I acquit myself
in the work that I have undertaken for the next three years, so
shall I either prejudice or enhance the prospects of those women
who may wish to follow me in public service in the years to come. I
know that many honorable members have viewed the advent of women to
the legislative halls with something approaching alarm; they have
feared, I have no doubt, the somewhat too vigorous use of a new
broom. I wish to reassure them. I hold very sound views on brooms,
and sweeping. Although I quite realize that a new broom is a very
useful adjunct to the work of the housewife, I also know that it
undoubtedly is very unpopular in the broom cupboard; and this
particular new broom knows that she has a very great deal to learn
from the occupants of I dare not say this particular cupboard. At
all events she hopes to conduct herself with sufficient modesty and
sufficient sense of her lack of knowledge at least to earn the
desire of honorable members to give her whatever help they may be
able to give. I believe, very sincerely, that any woman entering
the public arena must be prepared to work as men work; she must
justify herself not as a woman but as a citizen; she must attack
the same problems, and be prepared to shoulder the same burdens.
But because I am a woman, and cannot divest myself of those
qualities that are inherent in my sex, and because every one of us
speaks broadly in the terms of one's own experience, honorable
members will have to become accustomed to the application of the
homely metaphors of the kitchen rather than those of the operating
theatre, the workshop, or the farm. They must also become
accustomed to the application to all kinds of measures of the
touchstone of their effect upon the home and the family life. I
hope that no-one will imagine that that implies in any way a
limitation of my political interest. Rather, it implies an ever
widening outlook on every problem that faces the world to-day.
Every subject from high finance to international relations, from
social security to the winning of the war, touches very closely the
home and the family. The late King George V, as he neared the end
of a great reign and a good life, made a statement upon which any
one may base the whole of one s political philosophy, when he said,
"The foundation of a nation's greatness is in the homes of its
people". Therefore, honorable members will not, I know, be
surprised when I say that I am likely to be even more concerned
with national character than with national effort.
Somewhere about the year
1830 there began a period in Australian history which for me has
always held a peculiar fascination. I should like to have been born
at about that time. I should like to have been alive in the days
when bushrangers flourished, when life was hard and even raw, when
gold was discovered, when the colonies became States, and when all
of the great social and political movements were born which so
coloured the fabric of Australian life; because, during all those
years very much of what we now know as the Australian character was
formed. It was during those years that we learned those things
which still characterize the great bulk of our people hatred of
oppression, love of "a fair go", a passion for justice. It was in
those years that we developed those qualities of initiative and
daring that have marked our men in every war in which they have
fought qualities which, I hope, will never be allowed to die. We
are now on the threshold of such another era, when further
formative measures will have to be taken; because we are today an
organized community which no longer ' exists purely upon the
initiative of its individual members, and if we would ' serve
Australia well we must preserve those characteristics that were
formed ' during that early period of our history.
I have been delighted,
since I came here, to find the almost unanimity that exists in
respect of the need for social service and in respect of many of
the other problems that have been discussed in this chamber. In the
matter of social security one thing stands out clearly in my mind.
Such things are necessary in order that the weak shall not go to
the wall, that the strong may be supported, that all may have
justice. But we must never so blanket ourselves that those fine
national qualities of which I have spoken shall no longer have
play. I know so well that fear want and idleness can kill the
spirit of any people. But I know, too, that security can be bought
at too great a cost the cost of spiritual freedom. How, then, may
we strike a balance? That, it seems to me, is the big question for
us to decide today There is one answer. We know perfectly well that
any system of social security devised today must be financed
largely from general taxation. Yet I would insist that every person
in the community in receipt of any income whatsoever must make some
contribution to the fund for social security. I want it to be an
act of conscious citizenship. I want every child to be taught that
when he begins to earn, then, for the first time, he will have the
first privilege and right of citizenship to begin to contribute to
the great scheme that has been designed to serve him when he is no
longer able to work and to help all of those who at any period of
their lives may meet with distress or trouble. In such a scheme, I
believe, there should be pensions for all; there should be no means
test; those who have should contribute according to their means.
But every one, however little he or she earns, should contribute
something, be it only a three-penny stamp, as a sort of token
payment for the advantage of Australian citizenship. In passing,
let me say this: There is one reform, at least, that could be
applied to our present pensions system, which would have the
greatest effect in making a little brighter the lives of those upon
whom the years are already closing in. I consider that every
pensioner should have his or her pension posted to him or her in
the form of a cheque. At the present time any pensioner who so
wishes has the right to have the pension sent in that way, but few
pensioners are aware of it. If that were done, I believe that not
only would congestion in post offices be relieved, but also that a
small contribution would be made to easing the burden of those who
have come to old age or illness.
I am delighted that the
honorable member for Denison (Dr. Gaha) should have secured the
honour of having introduced to this chamber, in this debate, the
subject of population. Other members also have seized upon that
subject, apparently with a very great deal of pleasure, and have
dealt with it at some length; but to the honorable member for
Denison go the honours. I, like him, have pondered on this subject
not with my feet upon the mantle-piece, but knee-deep in shawls and
feeding bottles. I have pondered it, surrounded by those who, by
their very numbers, have done quite a good deal to boost the
population of Australia. I believe that I have at least tried out
some of the theories which would make for a better population, and
that I know some of the difficulties that present themselves to any
person who, in these days, desires to rear a family. One honorable
member has spoken of the need for a greater population for reasons
of defence. That, of course, is something that has to be
considered. But there has also to be considered the fact that,
unless we fill this country we shall have no justification in the
years that are ahead for holding it at all.
Another honorable member
spoke of the need for decentralization. On the north-west coast of
Tasmania, which is a part of the district that I represent, there
is, I believe, the best example of decentralization that is to be
found anywhere in Australia; but I do not want the House to believe
that that is why eleven members of the Lyons family were born at
Devonport. I consider that something more than decentralization is
necessary if the population of Australia is to be increased. It
would be well to go back a little while and look for the reasons
for the decline of population during the last 50 or 60 years. Two
main reasons are ascribed, the first the growth of industrialism
and the changed conditions resulting therefrom. Population became
urban instead of rural, and the conditions in which children were
brought up became less and less suitable. People were crowded.
Housing was inadequate, and the large families went to the wall.
The incidence of disease increased, and industrial disease came
with the development of new occupations. The workers were
unmercifully exploited. State paternalism became necessary, and
even in State paternalism certain reasons for the decline of family
life can be found. At the other end of the social scale other
reasons can be found for the declining birth-rate. New inventions,
and the provision of luxuries, provided new ways of spending
incomes and leisure. There was less domestic help to be had.
Finally, people began to think that the woman who became the mother
of a family was something of a lunatic. About 30 years later she
began to be regarded as something of a criminal lunatic. In the end
the belief developed that it was a social virtue to produce fewer
and fewer children. Where such a state of affairs exists, it is a
matter of courage, even of hardihood, to have a family of more than
two or three.
Still another reason for
the declining birthrate is sometimes advanced, a reason belonging
to the moral rather than to the economic sphere. It is to be found
in that strange reluctance to reproduce themselves that has
overtaken the peoples of the past in the final years of their
decline. That is a picture which none of us cares to contemplate. I
agree with the honorable member for Denison that we cannot hope,
merely by economic measures, to increase the birthrate Certain
things are necessary to be done in order to ease the burden on
families, but they must be looked upon only as measures of justice
to those who are prepared to face their responsibilities. We need
maternity and nursing services; we need some kind of domestic help
service; we need better houses. But those things cannot in
themselves revive the falling birthrate We must look to the basic
wage, which at present provides for the needs of three children for
every man who receives it; yet how many thousands of men in this
country have no children at all? How many have fewer than three yet
the three notional children of the man who has not any militate
against the success in life of the children in other families of
six and seven and eight. The basic wage is meagre enough in all
conscience too meagre but it should be estimated upon the needs of
a man and his wife, or of a man who must provide later for a wife,
and the children should be provided for by an extension of the
child endowment system. Let the man's wages be a direct charge upon
industry, but the children should be a charge on the whole
community. If we hope to increase the birthrate we must look to a
resurgence of the national spirit, a resurgence of national
vitality. We must look to a new concept of the dignity and worth of
the family in the social order. I agree with Paul Bureau that the
family is the matrix of humanity, the secret laboratory in which
every unit of human society is prepared, organized and maintained,
and if that laboratory is disorganized or chaotic, the most serious
disorders in social life must be expected.
Let us pause for a moment
and think of the time when the war shall end. Many speakers in the
course of this debate have said that they believe that the war will
end during the life of this Parliament, and all too many people
hope and believe that by the attainment of victory we shall step
straight into the golden age. Nothing could be more foolish,
because the golden age will arrive only when you and I and everyone
else have made some contribution towards it. We shall have to plan
for it, and work for it and sacrifice ourselves for it. We speak of
the men coming back, who must be kept on Army rates of pay until
suitable work can be found for them. It sounds easy, but is very,
very hard. First of all, what is suitable work for each of these
men? It will not be sufficient merely to let them go out and take
any kind of work. The employment offered them must provide a
reasonable prospect of congenial occupation, perhaps for the
greater part of their lives. And they will not want to stay on army
rates of pay. They are young, eager and impatient, and they will be
heartily sick of everything to do with the Army and with war. We
must have patience for them. We must be prepared, particularly the
women, to hold in stability those who have come back still in the
grip of the restlessness engendered by war. Those who return will
be, for the most part, in the age group of 20 to 30 years. They
must be trained to a trade or profession. Our present
apprenticeship cannot provide for their needs, and will have to be
re-adjusted. Here, I believe, trade unionists can and will make a
great contribution to national re-construction by considering and
planning suitable alternatives to the laws which at present mean a
great deal to them.
Almost every honorable
member who has touched on this topic has spoken on housing. I, too,
believe in a scheme of national housing. I believe that it will
help in the re-absorption into industry of discharged men, but I
believe also that we face a grave danger that the housing scheme
will be overloaded with unnecessary costs. We have in Australia
what I call a bricks and mortar complex. We cannot carry on any
activity without housing it in a palace. We want in the homes that
are to be built something less than is provided in some of the
houses I have seen designed. We want good walls and strong
foundations; we want good fittings, but we do not want something
that will cost more than is necessary. Permanency in a cathedral is
a wonderful thing, but no one wants a house to last for 300 years.
We need houses with sufficient space, so that the housewife can
work in comfort. There must be space for the children to move
about, and there must be sufficient space about the house so that
it will not readily become a part of a crowded slum.
There was a reference in
the Governor-General's Speech to an overhaul of the man-power
situation. I hope that when the Government gives this matter its
attention, it will re-adjust what I might call man-hours. At the
present time there are thousands of women in the services and in
munitions factories. By a slight re-adjustment of hours, it should
be possible for them to receive some training that would fit them
for civil life, particularly in the domestic sphere where I hope
most of them will eventually find their place. Each week they could
receive one or two hours' training in domestic science in canteens
attached to munitions establishments, hospitals or military camps,
so that when the men come home, torn, worn and wrecked, as many of
them will be by their war experiences, they will have women to meet
and greet them who will not be immediately harassed by a lack of
knowledge of domestic work, and the running of happy
homes.
Now let me turn just for a
moment to the international sphere. I have heard expressions of
opinion that have surprised and even hurt me, and I have heard some
that have cheered me greatly. Some honorable members have assured
us that there can never be any hope that mankind will escape the
horror of war that descends upon the world every now and then.
Others have assured us that by international co-ordination we can
usher in very quickly the reign of peace for which we all long. I
stand somewhere between the two schools of thought. Because of what
has happened to me in this war I have become disillusioned. For
years I went about the world preaching the gospel of peace and
friendship and co-operation. I believed with all that my heart in
disarmament, but I can never again advocate such a policy. I
believe that we must arm ourselves to meet whatever danger may
threaten us, but I also believe that we must co-operate with all
those forces of good that are working for peace, and with all those
people who have a will to peace, so that we may do whatever lies in
our power to preserve peace in our time. However, it is not
sufficient merely to cooperate, or should we limit the sphere of
goodwill. Surely we can see that if Germany should rise again in
Europe, Japan will rise again in the east as surely as the sun
itself rises. The other evening I, in common with many other
honorable members, saw a film dealing with the war in Europe. There
was one scene which portrayed the evacuation from Dunkirk. We saw
how the German army flowed across the Low Countries and over
northern France, and how the small British army was squeezed into
an ever-decreasing compass, until finally it was compressed into
the small area immediately around Dunkirk. Then the picture showed
a mist on the water, and the voice of the announcer said this: "And
then out of the mist there came a strange flotilla warships and
fishing smacks, and craft of all kinds filled the sea. It was the
sea-going English come to rescue their own". And I felt, as I
believe every other person felt who saw the picture, that this
indeed was one of the greatest moments in the history of our race.
I thought then, as I think now, that we should not fail
occasionally to pause and look back upon the great moments of our
past. We go along, thinking always that we progress, but sometimes
we have to pause and take stock. I think that every Australian
should pause now and again and say to himself, "Only 150 years ago
this land was wilderness. Now we have great cities, wonderful feats
of engineering and beautiful buildings everywhere. And this is
still a land of promise". We cannot afford to neglect some
recognition of our past, even though we gaze into the
future.
Now, honorable members
will forgive me, I know, when I say that I bear the name of one of
whom it was said in this chamber that to him the problems of
government were not problems of blue books, not problems of
statistics, but problems of human values and human hearts and human
feelings. That, it seems to me, is a concept of government that we
might well cherish. It is certainly one that I hold very dear. I
hope that I shall never forget that everything that takes place in
this chamber goes out somewhere to strike a human heart, to
influence the life of some fellow being, and I believe this, too,
with all my heart: that the duty of every government, whether in
this country or any other, is to see that no man, because of the
condition of his life, shall ever need lose his vision of the city
of God.
Mr. CURTIN (Fremantle
Prime Minister) [8.32]. We who have sat in this chamber to-night
have participated in one of the historic episodes of our
Commonwealth Parliament. For the first time, as the honorable
member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) has said, a member of her sex
has stood as an equal in this chamber and addressed herself to the
problems of the country. It is proper that I should say one or two
words about the importance of this occasion. Our predecessors in
this place and in other parliaments have struggled to give to women
the right to vote and to sit as elected representatives of the
people. We know that their struggles were met by the same degree of
hostility as has marked almost every great change which has been
contemplated in the affairs of men. The struggle for the
enfranchisement of women, and for the right of women to sit in
legislative assemblies, belongs indeed to the great struggle for
freedom and free institutions which has marked the evolution of our
race. I have no doubt that the first advocates found themselves in
what could well be described as an unimportant minority, but
gradually they won adherents and, in the course of time, the laws
were changed, the franchise was widened, and women were given the
right to vote and to sit in Parliament; but right is one thing and
opportunity to exercise it another. It remained for the Seventeenth
Parliament to assemble before, in either House of this Commonwealth
Parliament, we found women elected as representatives of the
people, and now in each chamber of this Commonwealth Parliament a
woman sits, sits not because she is a woman, but because she has
been elected by the people of Australia. That this great event in
the development of Australian citizenship should occur during the
greatest war that our country has ever waged is, I think, not a
mere accident; it occurs because women, as women, and men, as men,
have come to look at problems as problems. I have no doubt whatever
that the electors of Darwin elected their representative because
they believed that of the candidates offering she would make the
best member, and I would respectfully say that that was the view of
of the people of Western Australia also in making their selection
of senators for that State. We do not any longer sit here as men,
nor does the honorable member for Darwin attempt to suggest that
she sits here as a woman: we all sit here as persons upon whom our
fellow citizens have imposed a duty by preferring us to others who
offered at the polls. It is, as the honorable member for Darwin has
said, a very great responsibility that devolves upon here
shoulders. I have no doubt that all the women of Australia will
read what she has said tonight I very respectfully offer my
congratulations to the first woman who has had the honour to sit in
the House of Representatives.
HONORABLE MEMBERS.—Hear,
Hear!
House of Representatives.
Debates. 29 September 1943:182 6.
|