The Queensland Centenary of Women's enfranchisement

Hansard paints a vivid picture of the parliamentary debate and, even though it was a Government Bill, it was shelved. One MLA evoked a scene whereby men would turn up at the polling booth with their two children, to show they were entitled to two votes; another asserted that it was phallic worship. Someone interjected that it was the law of procreation, one member branded it the physical capability vote, and another, the stud vote.

In 1903 Arthur Morgan became Premier, and a Government Bill to give women the vote and abolish plural voting was introduced into the Legislative Assembly in September 1904.

Known as the Electoral Franchise Bill, it was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on September 27, 1904. It completed its second and third reading on October 11 without a vote being taken, as there was clearly overwhelming support for it. It then went to the Legislative Council but the Council baulked at abolishing the plural vote and it was decided that the Bill would not be read again for another six months. The Council was promptly dubbed “the House of Prejudice, Privilege and Property” and “the slaughterhouse of reform”.

On December 1904 Premier Morgan announced an extraordinary scenario to force the passage of his franchise legislation. Parliament was recalled on January 4, 1905. This was unprecedented, and was a great inconvenience. Country members would have had difficulty in getting home for Christmas and back again by 4 January, and sitting in parliament in January without air conditioning would have been unpleasant.

The Legislative Council subsequently acquiesced, and the Elections Acts Amendment Act of 1905 was assented to.

The arguments supporting the enfranchisement of women were simple, and changed little during the 15-year struggle. Richard Hyne had clearly enunciated them in 1890. It was a matter of justice that women should have equal voting rights with men. They paid taxes but had no representation; they were subject to all the laws, yet had no voice in formulating them; they had the right to hold property, conduct business; and sue and be sued; and, they were permitted to vote in municipal elections.

Arguments against women’s enfranchisement ran the whole gamut from the ludicrous to the bizarre. The objections fell into six categories: 1) women did not want it; 2) they were unfit to use it; 3) they were too easily led; 4) it wasn’t in the male interest; 5) fear of the unknown; 6) women should be revered and uncontaminated.

Objections that women did not want the vote were not only pure speculation but also flawed, as there was no compulsion to register to vote.

The second objection that women were unfit to vote drew upon notions of women’s intellectual capacity not being the same as men’s, and the fact that women were not able to fight to defend their country. They were alleged to have defects in their character, be narrower in their views, or more conservative.

The third objection was based on the premise that women would easily be misled by designing males. One MP was of the opinion that “in 99 cases out of a 100, women will vote as their husbands, or brothers, or male friends tell them”, and another went one step beyond that, asserting that “if there was a good-looking young man he will get their vote irrespective of his politics”.

The fourth objection, that women’s suffrage was not in the male interest, included such things as the concern that women would neglect their families; corrupt the system; parliamentary institutions would suffer; the divorce rate would go up and the birthrate down; they might even get into parliament. Some members were worried their womenfolk might not vote for them.

The fifth objection, fear of the unknown, tended to be based around the lack of precedent and experience. Australia had survived until then without it; it might lower the tone of parliament; public opinion was not sufficiently advanced.

The sixth objection revolved around the idea of womanhood as needing to be kept in a gilded cage or placed on a pedestal to avoid contamination by the hurly-burly of politics. Members spoke on this with considerable inventiveness: for example, there was no way a woman would register to vote if she had to state her age.

Finally, reasons for not giving women the vote were advanced which fitted no category but the bizarre. Only the colony’s plain and ugly women wanted the vote. It would increase the power of the clergy. It would be the end of civilization as we know it.

Although Queensland was the second last state to enfranchise women, when this took place in 1905 without any extreme consequences, it became the second state to give women the right to sit in parliament. This was legislated in 1915 with the passing of the Elections Act.