Fifty Years Of Votes For Women

New Zealand Listener, Volume 8, Issue 204, 21 May 1943, Page 4

Fifty Years Of Votes For Women

What Have They Meant To New Zealand ?

| a corridor in the House of Representatives the other day, two men unrolled for the benefit of a Listener representative about 100 yards of a roll of paper, without making much difference to the size of the spool. It was a petition presented to Parliament in 1892, bearing the signatures of 25,519 women over 21 who were "of opinion that the franchise should be extended to women." | the dark red carpet of The petition had evidently not been unrolled since it was first asembled in sections after being examined by the Petitions Committee of the House of Representatives more than 50 years ago. By the time a curving snake of strong paper forms pasted top to tail had been extended about 100 yards along the carpet to a corner, the men began to realise that for the amusement of discovering the total length of the document, the labour of rolling it up again would be a heavy price. So about 7000 signatures were rolled back again to join another 18,000 names that will probably remain hidden until someone’s curiosity to see the full list equals his diligence in rewinding it neatly. On the grimy outside of the roll are written a few details-the number of names, the fact that the petition was presented to the House by Sir John Hall, and that it had been forwarded by K. W. Sheppard, Franchise Department, W.C.T.U. on July 5, 1892. Women’s franchise had been advocated in Parliament as early as 1877 (by Dr. Wallis). In 1888, Sir John Hall (then member for Selwyn, once having been Prime Minister, and having since become interested in liberalising the electoral laws), presented a great petition, and gave notice to move that the franchise be granted to women. In 1889 he said: "We cannot afford to bid women stand aside from the work of the nation. We need all their spirit of duty, their patience, their knowledge in abating the sorrow, sin, and want that is around us." In 1891 the second reading of the Bill was passed by a majority of 25, but the Legislative Council threw it out by 17 votes to 15, to the dismay of its supporters. In 1893, Sir John Hall again presented a petition, and on August 9 the second reading passed almost unanimously. The Legislative Council bowed to the inevitable, and even then a

minority petitioned the Governor not to assent. The Bill became law on September 9, 1893, The reasons given in the petition for the extension of the franchise to women include the following. "That it has become an accepted axiom that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the Governed." "That the physical weakness of women naturally disposes them to exercise habitual caution, and to feel a deep interest in the constant preservation of peace, law, and order, and especially in the supremacy of right over might." "That those who are mothers are particularly interested in legislation bearing upon the education and moral welfare of the young."’ All that was half a century ago this year; so to find out whether New Zealand women still value the democratic privilege won for them in 1893, and whether they are satisfied with the use they have made of it, we asked a representative selection (including one man), for their comments, and in some cases

for their reminiscences of those exciting other days when wocnen’s suffrage seemed so important. "It Was Too Easy" "THE trouble with us in New Zealand was that we got the vote too darned easily,’ said Mrs. Knox Gilmer, a daughter of the Rt. Hon. R. J. Seddon, and a well known organiser of women’s activities. "In England they fought and fought for it. They had to; and when they got it they appreciated it. But here we just sat still and didn’t do anything about it. It wasn’t until 1917 that we also got the right to stand for Parliament. Then when we did have that right, our women candidates couldn’t get in. "Still, since we have had some women in the House, they’ve made themselves felt. They can be a link between the Government and the women’s organisations, and we can use them as a means of approach; we have used them, of course. And I think we want more of them. But you have to be strong to do the work. It appeals to some women, and it’s in my blood, but not in everyone’s. Still, with so many more women assuming social responsibilities in this war, we may get more candidates from among them." "Nothing Worth Celebrating" "D2 you think any young woman is in the least interested in whether it is fifty or a hundred years since women had the vote?" asked a woman who for many years has been prominent in women’s movements in Wellington, in reply to The Listener's questions. "Women have no right to congratulate themselves that they have the vote, or that it has made an immense amount of difference. Celebrating the jubilee is just a sentimental idea. There should never have been any question about it at all. In a decent world, women would have had the vote with men. But of course until very recently the attitude just was that the vote went with pro-perty-owning and only a limited number of men had it. In a properly organised world-which we haven’t got-you value every citizen, and a woman is not considered in any other way than as a citizen. Unfortunately, the vote in New Zealand never did give women real equality. The vote was looked upon as a political measure, and it had very little effect in giving women any real measure of equality. Women are so silly that they don’t or won’t realise that they must unite. If they did, especially in wartime, they could get anything that they wanted. Instead, they do a man’s job at half his wages-and that in a country that is supposed to have led the (Continued on next page)

(Continued from previous page) world in giving women equality with men. No, we have nothing to celebrate, but we are moving slowly in the right direction." "Important As A Symbol" "1 DON’T know that the vote matters politically at all," said a professional woman, when questioned by The Listener. "To my way of thinking it is important as a symbol of democracy and of the emancipation of women, It is not that the vote is much good in itself, but even if I never used the vote I would nevertheless fight for it tooth and nail, because I think that women should have the rights and responsibilities as citizens that men have if we are to have a better world in the future. Do I think the vote in itself has been important? Well, I think an English suffragette who was recently out here on a visit just about summed up the itTtew Zealand position when she said. ‘If the vote were removed from New Zealand women, there would be no public outcry!’" "Nothing to Vote For’ "T DON’T think women should have a vote at all," one woman confessed. She was, she said, from the country, and women there had too many other things to think about to bother their heads about politics. "It would, of course, be different if we owned our own farms, but we don’t, and there is no reason for votes if you have nothing to vote for." "You mean," we suggested, "no property to vote for?" "Exactly. That is what votes are for, isn’t it?" We didn’t think it was, and remarked that it was odd to find a woman taking such a view in 1943. But she thought we were odd. "Votes for women who own nothing are like music for people who have no pianos. I just duplicate my husband’s vote." "Sometimes They Are Interested" "\/HEN matters come up that directly concern women, I think they do value the vote," said a woman in the city. "It’s perfectly true that politics

concern men more than they concern women, for instance when taxes are the issue; but as soon as questions arise that affect a woman’s life, she is quite ready to examine them and record her decision. For instance, I think every housewife is interested in price stabilisation, or the work of the Internal Marketing Department; if she isn’t the least bit interested in trade unions and arbitration, it isn’t necessarily true to say that she is not interested in. the administration of the country." "You'll Think Me Old-Fashioned" "\ ELL," said one, "I’m over 70, so I must have been here when the vote was first given to us. But I don’t remember any excitement. I suppose I missed the first vote and took the second as a matter of course. But I don’t think it has made much difference one way or the other. I have lived about half my life in the country and half in the town, and I think I have always exercised my privilege of voting. But it is not more women in Parliament I want to see: it is more and better women in the home. Yes, you will think me old-fashioned, but my opinion is that if women stayed at home more than they do, and looked after their husbands better, we would not require so many laws. If we are not satisfied to-day to leave Parliament to our husbands, it is because we are not sure what they will do to us. We know what we deserve when we neglect our duties, and we are afraid we may get it." Wanted-A Joan of Arc "BASIC social changes do not get very far in 50 years," said Mr. F. L. Combs, an authority on education and social reform. "In that time, in spite of the franchise, women have entered and occupied all too small a part of what is still a man-ruled world. Of course their ‘task has not been easy, for men in my experience are by no means chivalrous when it comes to conceding to women a due share of the solid advantages of social influence and political power. Could women then by more judicious tactics have done more? 1 think so. They could have concentrated on their special province: children. Yet they are

little in evidence in the main department of that special province, education. Their interest in it is comparatively small and, of that small interest, only a still smaller percentage is enlightened. "Yet it is in the schools that they could begin a crusade for a real, as distinguished from a_ rhetorical ew Order. It is at this point that the hand that rocks the cradle should begin to rule the world, but it has failed to do so. "In part the failure is due to older women’s interests being too wholly restricted to their domestic affairs and their own limited personal social circle. In the case of younger women, who, one admits, nowadays do well their full share of the world’s work, leisure is, it seems to me, too exclusively devoted to passing social distractions and to an excessive concern for the arts, often factitious, of personal adornment. "A ‘Joan of Arc’ would be timelyone who realised that given educational means as good as they easily could be, we should live to see a new world, more remarkable and likeable than that of science, being made by a new order of beings who had fulfilled all their possi- bilities during the vitally important growing stages." "It's Different in England" ""[ HERE is one difference between England and New Zealand which must have some bearing on the effectiveness of the women’s franchise," said an Englishwoman who now lives in this country. "In England where the women outnumber the men so much, there is what you might call a spinster group, more or less upper middle-class, consisting of educated women who are not tied up by domestic duties, and there is a tendency for that group to lead women’s political interests. Here, where the population is more evenly balanced, there is no equivalent for that large English group which provides women with a wide. choice of leaders." "| Remember When. . ." ef CAN remember a good deal that was entertaining in those days when we were trying to get the vote," said Miss A. Kirk, who with her sisters and | mother all worked with the Women’s Christian femperance Union for the vote for women in New Zealand. "Though I did not actually go round collecting signatures, I heard a lot about it, and I can remember many of the stories that we used to laugh over. For instance, there is this one about Mrs. Taylor. She was the wife of T. E. Taylor, who was something of a fire-brand and an out-and-out prohibitionist One day Mrs. Taylor was taking the children out in the pram and she decided that she might at the same time collect a few signatures to the petition. She called at one house and was met by a forbidding lady. No, she said. she didn’t believe in women having the vote. Men were bad enough, but a woman ruled by women would be worse, and sc on. As Mrs, Taylor was leaving. the woman called out, ‘If I had the vote could I vote against that scamp T. E. Taylor?’ "‘Of course,’ said Mrs. Taylor, and got her signature. "I don’t remember any real disturbances, but there was quite a lot of barracking at the first poll. Yes, we had a let of fun, and many women worked very hard, but I don’t know that women here have done all that they might with the vote," ARES Pits ame"

A print dated 1894, showing women voting in Auckland: from t the Centennial Collection in the Turnbull Library