Interviewer (Fiona McLeod SC)

How did you find practising at the Melbourne Bar, being one of only two women at the Bar?

Allayne Kiddle, interviewed in 2002

Well, I didn’t think of myself as a woman at the Bar – this is something that’s come with modern women, I thought of myself as a barrister at the Bar, and I’m sure Joan Rosanove never thought of herself as a woman at the Bar. She knew she was the best divorce practitioner in Melbourne.

Fiona McLeod SC, WBA convenor 2002-03

My experience was when you asked a number of senior women whether they had experienced discrimination at the Bar, inevitably they would say “No” and I think the reasons for that were twofold; one is that they had not experienced discrimination because they had had the benefit of support and patronage, and the other was that they were ashamed to say “Yes”. Because it is a competitive industry and we are each competing with each other and being judged on our so-called merits, for someone to admit that they were missing out on work would necessarily reflect badly on them and their standing and their merit. So if you were to admit you had no work, you were seen as a dud and you deserved to fail. So all of us had to at various times say, yes we’re doing all right, but I see other women who are not. And it is a very difficult issue and I don’t think it has been resolved.

Joan Rosanove QC (archival 1965 footage “From Being a Sheila”, courtesy Nine Network Australia)

It’s highly competitive and when a young woman starts as a member of the Bar, she’s got to wait a long time, she’s got to be very, very patient before she gets a brief at all. Then she’s got to be very successful with that particular brief to get the next brief.

Interviewer

Far more successful than a man might be?

Joan Rosanove QC

Well, you said that, I didn’t. Yes, perhaps she’s got to be better than a man. But she can’t start off with any great ideas of setting the world on fire straight away. She’s got to be waiting for the briefs and for the breaks.

NARRATION:

33 years after Joan Rosanove gave that interview, at the WBA’s instigation, the Victorian Bar Council commissioned a report in 1998. Researchers Dr Rosemary Hunter and Helen McElvie found that women were still being given disproportionately fewer briefs than men, especially for cases involving trial work and in non-traditional practice areas such as commercial litigation. Women were also leaving the Bar earlier and in larger numbers than men.

Samantha Marks, WBA convenor 2003-05

In 1998, I think it was the Bar actually supported the report, the Hunter Report that was the first report of its kind in Australia that actually looked at: Well was it all just a lot of scuttlebutt or were women being briefed in the right proportion for how many were there, and what were the things endemic in the system that were stopping it, if that turned out to be the case, and it turned out that they were not being briefed at quite the rates one would have thought given the numbers, far from it.

Judge Susan Cohen

The Bar Council to do it credit did not bury that report so there was a lot to be done and we started meetings with all sorts of groups, to address the various areas that were highlighted in the report where some action can be taken.

Frances O’Brien SC, WBA convenor 1995-96

Because in endeavouring to persuade people about the Hunter Report, I mean there is no doubt that Rachelle (Lewitan) and Brian Shaw pulled it off ultimately, but there were various of us sent out to persuade individuals. And the most interesting thing about that process was: forget rational argument with most of them - if you’re endeavouring to persuade male members of the Bar Council that they should support this, forget rational argument, you’re not going to get anywhere with rational argument, you always had to appeal to their emotions. And I’ll never forget being with Pamela Tate (WBA convenor 2000 – 2001) and she was persuading Neil Young who is one of the finest barristers of his generation and it was all pure intellect, it was all pure rationale, pure argument: “this is why you’ve got to do it, Neil, and these are the reasons”. And it was Pamela and Neil just brilliantly elucidating the arguments. Pamela and I go and see another member of the Bar Council, not as eminent but, you know, a very well known trial jury advocate and Pamela starts and I said “It’s not going to work, Pamela” and we just then went straight into the emotional arguments and had him like that. And that’s the interesting thing about those men, you know, really these are such difficult arguments for them, save for the very best, the whole notion of women not being mothers at home with their arms in the sink, you know, it was very difficult concepts for them early on.

Judge Rachelle Lewitan

That report has now been used by the profession Australia-wide and the Bar in Victoria has been commended for commissioning that report and seem very progressive and I think now that the Bar Council now realises that it has benefited from its willingness to examine its own practices and be part of that report.

Frances O’Brien SC

There was a lot of unofficial opposition to it, just an enormous amount. It was the end of civilisation, you know, “they want special preference, this is a disaster, why are they doing this, there is nothing to complain about”. There was huge opposition to it.

Juliette Brodsky

But did the sky fall in?

Frances O’Brien SC

No, ‘course it didn’t!

Edited transcript of interviews conducted by Juliette Brodsky on March 30 and April 10 2007 in the Neil McPhee Room, Owen Dixon Chambers East, and filmed by Sarah McLeod, Stewart Carter, Branden Barber and Bonnie Elliott.