National Law Week Luncheon

Speech by Kellie Tranter

29 March 2007

It is a great pleasure to be with you today to celebrate law week 2007.

At every level, law is the lifeblood of true democracy and individual freedom.  Internationally, you can see this if you flick through the pages of the current issue of Time magazine.

First, there are the inevitable stories about the war in Iraq.  That war involves questions of international law that have been raised but have not been the subject of widespread or informed debate because of the very slanted perspective presented by Western media.  I suspect that in times to come the actions of America, and by association of Australia, will be judged harshly by the objective standards of international law and international conventions.

Next there is a report on the beginning of what promises to be a dispute of major proportions between the American President and Congress about the distribution of powers between them and the judiciary.  Congress is concerned about the president assuming the power of doing things like authorising domestic wiretapping and limiting habeas corpus, areas that concern the legal rights of citizens.  Control over law is a certain path to control over society.

There is also a brief note of a case heard by the United States Supreme Court on 19 March about freedom of speech.  Unlike Australians, United States citizens can call on the rule of law to recognise their constitutionally enshrined rights in the face of government encroachment.

There is another note about the tragedy for democracy, civil liberties and human rights of the activities of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.  The parlous state of that country reflects the absence of the rule of law.  And there is another note about the execution in Iraq of the former Vice President to Saddam, the inevitable conclusion of a highly publicised formal legal process.  Some would describe those processes as show trials, but I won't comment on that.

The magazine continues with an interview with Mr Ahmed, Chief Adviser of the caretaker government in Bangladesh.  That is interesting because of the zeal with which Mr Ahmed is trying to clean up the country, apparently with the support of the citizens, so that a reliable democracy can be established.  He speaks of enshrining the rule of law.  He is quoted as saying "...the conditions under which we came to power are constitutional, and the military in Bangladesh really respect the rule of law and the Constitution...Corruption has emerged as a great threat to good governance and, in fact, to democracy.  A really free, fair, credible election has to be held in an atmosphere where corrupt means and practices do not unfairly influence the outcome.  What was happening was that money, muscle and misuse of authority were working to win an election....If we can successfully prosecute some of the known big offenders, we will not only earn thanks from the people but also send strong signals which will work as deterrents against future corruption."

I won't ask whether that sounds familiar, but will say that from reading the interview Mr Ahmed sounds like quite an impressive leader.

The next story deals with Rudy Giuliani and contains an interesting tidbit about how he lent his name to a law firm that wanted to establish a presence in New York.  Actually, "sold" his name might be more accurate, given that the first payment to him was estimated at something over $1 million.

There is a section specifically called Legal Affairs.  Its attention grabber is a photograph and reference to the trial of Conrad Black, the press baron, but what is more interesting is its discussion about how juries understand the idea of "reasonable doubt" in criminal trials.

An article on parents lending money to children refers to the importance of documenting the loan.

The Global Business section contains articles on Polish immigrants in Ireland and the giant French international water companies.  Issues about immigrant workforces and about ownership, management and regulation of water utilities are common in almost all countries now, and in Australia migration law and water law are both booming areas.

You can see from this synopsis that virtually every story has a legal subtext of one sort or another.  That is a reflection of the complex nature of our modern world, on the one hand, and on the other of the fact that individuals keep pushing the boundaries of the law -- and unfortunately crossing them.

If you undertake the same exercise with an Australian publication you will see that the situation is much the same at our national level.  In Australia we are lucky to have a strong and independent judiciary, particularly in the High Court of Australia.  High Court decisions are often subject to criticism by politicians and other commentators but if you read them you will see how hard the judges work to ensure that the rule of law is maintained.  Unfortunately our governments do not seem to be so well motivated:  for example, at the Federal level we have our government's actions in relation to genuine refugees, and its shameful inaction in the face of David Hicks being removed from the operation of the rule of law.  At the State level you may recall the very strong opposition Bob Carr's government had to enshrining a Bill of Rights in the New South Wales Constitution.

Be that as it may, if you think about it you will see from your own experience that law underpins, either positively by its presence or negatively by its absence, virtually everything that modern human beings do.

The difference between how humans behave when it is present and how they behave when it is absent should reinforce for all of us the importance of maintaining the rule of law where it does exist and promoting its extension to countries and areas of activity where it does not.  Without it we are left with a fragmented or individual struggle, inspiring for its courage but so often coming at too high a personal cost.  You may remember the words of Edmund Zuwanie:

"The gunfire around makes it hard to hear.  But the human voice is different from other sounds.  It can be heard over noises that bury everything else.  Even when it is not shouting.  Even if it is just a whisper.  Even the lowest whisper can be heard over armies when it is telling the truth."

So what is the Rule of Law and why is it so important?

In an era where human activity is largely driven by power, money and greed and where political institutions use religion and terrorism to scare people into submission, the rule of law reminds all citizens and governments that:

• every member of a society, even a ruler, must follow the law;
• rules need to be clear, well-understood, and fairly enforced, including property rights and enforcement of contracts;
• all individuals should enjoy the full exercise of their fundamental liberties and civil rights, and the guarantees necessary to ensure that should themselves be assured
• no individual stands above the law, and all rulers must be answerable to the law.  This is a major legacy of the constitutional system.

The rule of law can also be understood as the belief that there is a universal standard of justice, equality and impartiality, against which all governments and governmental actions may be measured.

Why then is it so important to have women at the heart of law making and law enforcement at all levels?

The famous author and humanist, Arundhati Roy, said "a political struggle that does not have women at the heart of it, above it, below it and within it is no struggle at all."

I can only assume that Arundhati knew what behavioural studies confirm, which is that women are more trustworthy, more public spirited and promote honest government, which has a profound anti-corruption effect both at the micro and macro levels.

When there is an obvious need for women law makers and enforcers, why are so few women sitting around the round table?

I was disappointed to see a report recently released by the Australian National University that confirms that Australia is going backwards in gender equity, that the pay gap between men and women has widened and that there has been a dismantling of women's policy machinery and the silencing of the women's NGO sector.  It is no surprise that the report concludes that neither major political party is much committed to reversing these negative trends.  The question is why?  Are women too busy to put themselves on the political agenda?  Are women really supporting one another?  Or is it because women haven't taken the time to understand the problem and appreciate its implications and develop a unified strategic plan?

These important questions need answers....and all of you have an opportunity of helping to find them.  Some of you will be leaders, some of you will be strategists, some of you will be workers, but if all of you think clearly and act according to good conscience then you will all be part of the solution.

If you were to ask my advice I would say that the problems facing women are more fundamental than obvious issues like work/life balance and the high cost of child care and aged care services.  I think women have forgotten what they should be fighting for because they have forgotten who we are.  The simple truth is that women are people and what women should aim for is to be treated as people equally with all others.  Gender should be an irrelevant criterion.  We are talking about humanism, about fundamental human equality.  What we are talking about requires a real change in attitude by both men and women, but if we can change the way people think to entrench that notion of equality then things will never be the same again.

My hope is that women will begin to analyse and strip back our social programming.  Gender schemas are culturally shared, socially constructed hypotheses about how women and men are and should be.  They are usually implicit, unarticulated and unacknowledged assumptions, and although invisible they play a central role in shaping our lives, both personally and professionally.  In white, middle class, Western society the gender schema for men describes them as independent, assertive, autonomous, decisive, strong, competitive and task orientated.  In contrast, the gender schema for women describes them as nuturing, sensitive, communal, self-sacrificing, emotional and expressive.  The media in general and advertising in particular focus on and accentuate these differences.

It's not that there is no truth to these stereotypes.  But they are extreme oversimplifications which emphasise some characteristics at the expense of others.  Gender schemas, by their very existence and by their social reinforcement, are largely responsible for the lack of advancement of women lawyers to positions of leadership and power.  And because they are implicit and largely invisible, these schemas exert their power without people being conscious of them.

Imagine that...women are being held back by something invisible!  Illuminating what is invisible is the first step to being able to deal with it, but it is not enough just to do that in isolation.  Women must commit themselves to dispelling the assumptions and doubts that surround them, and to breaking cycle of those assumptions being self-perpetuating.  We can start now by believing that we can find a way and not attributing our talents to luck.  We must never give up, we must help each other and we must always remember that those who most need and deserve our help seldom ask for it.  That means you must volunteer to do what you can...don't wait to be asked!

As Robert Kennedy said:

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.  Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.