Speaker 1: On a Chilei, Tasmania morning, a media pack of cameras
Speaker 1: and journalists that pitched outside a bar and hobart. They're
Speaker 1: waiting for Kersha Keshler, an artists curator and wife of
Speaker 1: the owner of Mona. When she finally emerges, she's followed
Speaker 1: by a congolin of supporters dressed in navy suits and pearls.
Speaker 1: They're on their way to the Supreme Court of Tasmania
Speaker 1: to appeal an anti discrimination ruling, a ruling which forced
Speaker 1: Keshela to shut down one of her art installations, and
Speaker 1: Keshler couldn't appear happier to be going to court. From
Speaker 1: Schwartz Media, I'm Daniel James. This is seven AM. In
Speaker 1: a case they made international headlines and intrigue legal experts,
Speaker 1: a man took legal action against Mona's Ladies Lounge, an
Speaker 1: art installation designed to highlight the historical and ongoing disadvantages
Speaker 1: faced by women. At the heart of the case is
Speaker 1: a question, how does a lavish lounge exclusively for women
Speaker 1: promote equal opportunity? Today I contributed to the Saturday paper
Speaker 1: Gabriela Koslovich and what happens when discrimination is the artwork?
Speaker 1: It's Friday, September twenty Gabriella, tell me a bit about
Speaker 1: the Ladies Lounge at Mona for those who don't know
Speaker 1: what is it, and you've actually been there, haven't you.
Speaker 2: I have.
Speaker 3: I visited in March. And it's really just a small
Speaker 3: private room inside this huge museum that everyone knows so well, Mona.
Speaker 3: And it's really just a cordoned off space that's bordered
Speaker 3: by long green silk curtains and a woman sitting at
Speaker 3: the front of this room and she will only allow
Speaker 3: in ladies or people who identify as ladies, so no
Speaker 3: men allowed. The only time they're allowed in there is
Speaker 3: for special events. And then there are male butlers who
Speaker 3: have to they hired to lavish and praise attention on
Speaker 3: the ladies.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm in the Ladies Lounge at Mona. It's a
Speaker 4: beautiful space for women to escape this strange and disjointed
Speaker 4: world of male domination and relish and the pure company
Speaker 4: of women while being served by a retinue of butlers
Speaker 4: who live to give us every dream and joy.
Speaker 3: It's very tongue in cheek and playful and essentially you
Speaker 3: go in there and there's a big green velvet couch
Speaker 3: and there's some artworks. It was interesting to see the
Speaker 3: difference between men's reactions and women's reactions. I was inside
Speaker 3: the lounge and I could hear a guy outside saying,
Speaker 3: is there.
Speaker 5: A men's lounge?
Speaker 3: And then he said, the last time I went to
Speaker 3: a men's lounge, it cost me a couple of hundred,
Speaker 3: you know, So it's sort of poking fun a bit.
Speaker 3: But he was he seemed a little bit upset about it.
Speaker 3: And yet inside the lounge it was interesting to hear
Speaker 3: what women were saying. And there was a young woman
Speaker 3: in the lounge and she just said, it's so nice
Speaker 3: to be told that only ladies can come in here.
Speaker 3: But it's this very feature of the Lady's Lounge, the
Speaker 3: fact that men aren't a loud that's what's got the
Speaker 3: Lady's Lounge into legal trouble.
Speaker 1: So it sounds delightful it is. But how did the
Speaker 1: Lady's Lounge first wind up in legal trouble?
Speaker 5: Well, it wound up in legal trouble because.
Speaker 3: Last year in April, a man called Jason Lao, a
Speaker 3: man from New South Wales, visited Mona and he wasn't
Speaker 3: allowed in because that's the whole point of the artwork,
Speaker 3: and he took exception to that and he thought, well,
Speaker 3: that's discriminatory.
Speaker 2: Jason lo complained, I visited Mona, paid thirty five dollars
Speaker 2: on the expectation I would have access to the museum,
Speaker 2: and I was quite surprised when I was told I
Speaker 2: would not be able to see one exhibition the Lady's Lounge.
Speaker 2: Now Jason Lao has taken the museum to the Tasmanian
Speaker 2: Civil and Administrative Tribunal alleging discrimination.
Speaker 3: Now, so Kersha was delighted that this case had been
Speaker 3: brought to the tribunal, that had been brought to the courts,
Speaker 3: because it was a way of actually showing what the
Speaker 3: artwork is about.
Speaker 4: And I'm extremely grateful to mister Lao for the last
Speaker 4: year because we get to exercise the argument, and I
Speaker 4: think it's completely fascinating.
Speaker 3: It highlights that the very fat that men are being
Speaker 3: rejected from the ladies Lounge means that they are.
Speaker 5: Experiencing the artwork as she intended.
Speaker 3: You know, the very intention of the artwork is to
Speaker 3: let men experience what it's like to be discriminated against.
Speaker 1: So the main statement that the artwork is making is
Speaker 1: that rejection in itself is an artistic statement that doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily sound like a solid legal argument. So how did
Speaker 1: that play out the tribunal?
Speaker 3: That's right, It is a really interesting legal case. How
Speaker 3: do you argue in law that the Ladies Lounge should exist?
Speaker 3: The Antidiscrimination Act has an exemption. It has many exemptions,
Speaker 3: and the exemption that Mona's legal counsel we're relying on
Speaker 3: is section twenty six that allows for discrimination if a
Speaker 3: plan or program or arrangement promotes equal opportunity for a
Speaker 3: group of people that have been advantaged. So at the tribunal,
Speaker 3: Jason Law represented himself and he appeared via video link
Speaker 3: video conferencing, and he made his case, and his case
Speaker 3: was that he didn't think that section twenty six could
Speaker 3: apply in this case because he couldn't see how the
Speaker 3: Ladies Lounge provided equal opportunity. He saw it as actually
Speaker 3: reinforcing a discrimination.
Speaker 5: I men are not allowed to enter Kersher and all
Speaker 5: of her supporters.
Speaker 3: They were very cheeky and they performed a silent, synchronized
Speaker 3: routine inside the tribunal. You know, they were crossing and
Speaker 3: uncrossing their legs and they were peering down their glasses
Speaker 3: at the proceedings and nothing rude, but just you know, nonetheless,
Speaker 3: they were performing in the court and the tribunal member
Speaker 3: in his room only noted this notice this behavior and
Speaker 3: stead it, you know, bored it on contempt of court.
Speaker 3: So in April the tribunal handed down its decision, and
Speaker 3: it basically said that Mona had to stop discriminating against men,
Speaker 3: and it could do that in a number of ways.
Speaker 3: It could either close the Lady's lounge or remove it,
Speaker 3: or reform it, or let men enter.
Speaker 4: It doesn't seem right that the lady's Lounge has to close.
Speaker 4: I think that I think that the Coote took too
Speaker 4: narrow a reading of the Anti Discrimination Act.
Speaker 5: And she thought, how could I reform it?
Speaker 3: And I remember speaking to her about it at the time,
Speaker 3: and she thought, well, I could make a Sunday school there.
Speaker 3: Because religious institutions are exempt from discrimination. There's a whole
Speaker 3: lot of other discrimination exemptions, i e.
Speaker 4: Toilet church school, reform school. There's a number of exemptions,
Speaker 4: and I think we might be able to meet all
Speaker 4: of them.
Speaker 5: But she decided at the end to simply close it.
Speaker 3: And to appeal the arguments that were made at the Tribunal.
Speaker 1: After the break, the case finds its way to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So Gabriella, let's turn to the appeal. The
Speaker 1: tribunal decided that the ladies lounge was discriminatory. The case
Speaker 1: has now made its way to the Supreme Court. Where's
Speaker 1: it up to it at the moment.
Speaker 3: So this week the appeal was on at the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court of Tasmania. And just as we had during the
Speaker 3: tribunal hearing in March, it was a it was quite
Speaker 3: quite a spectacle, not inside the court because you have
Speaker 3: to behave inside the court.
Speaker 5: But outside the court.
Speaker 3: Kersher reprised the performances that she had organized.
Speaker 5: During the tribunal hearing.
Speaker 3: Well, this time she had something like sixty or seventy
Speaker 3: supporters with her, all dressed in navy suits and pearls
Speaker 3: and very well groomed, looking very serious, and they walked
Speaker 3: very slowly and deliberately into the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
Speaker 3: This time, however, we seemed to have a more sympathetic
Speaker 3: hearing with the Acting Justice Shane Marshall. But essentially we
Speaker 3: had Mona's counsel Catherine Scott reiterating that the Ladies' lounge
Speaker 3: could exist under Section twenty six because it promoted equal
Speaker 3: opportunity in the broadest sense. She cited the Australian Government
Speaker 3: Status of Women report Card, which showed that women were
Speaker 3: less respected, less valued and less powerful than men. How
Speaker 3: women are less likely to be in the top roles
Speaker 3: in an organization, they don't get those high profile roles,
Speaker 3: or they're less paid, etc.
Speaker 5: Etc. We all know the stats.
Speaker 3: So she was arguing that Section twenty six does apply,
Speaker 3: and that the tribunal didn't apply that exemption appropriately and
Speaker 3: that they erred by not doing that. This Section twenty
Speaker 3: six was absolutely valid.
Speaker 1: But you mentioned that this time around the judge in
Speaker 1: this case appeared more sympathetic. So how has the judge
Speaker 1: reacted so far?
Speaker 3: There was an interesting sort of exchanges between Mona's Council
Speaker 3: and the judge. Acting Justice Shane Marshall borrowed a phrase
Speaker 3: that Mona's Council, Catherine Scott had coined. She described the
Speaker 3: Ladies Lounge as a flip universe where it's.
Speaker 5: The men who were sidelined.
Speaker 3: You know, in the same way that until nineteen sixty five,
Speaker 3: women in Australia were forbidden to drink at a public
Speaker 3: bar with men and were relegated to the so called
Speaker 3: ladies lounge, This lady's.
Speaker 5: Lounge at Mona.
Speaker 3: Flipped that around and said, men, you're not allowed to
Speaker 3: you're not allowed to enter.
Speaker 5: He knows this discrimination.
Speaker 3: He talked about, you know, yeah, the ladies lounge where
Speaker 3: my mother and I used to get shunted in pubs
Speaker 3: in Port Melbourne.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like the judges is more sympathetic to
Speaker 1: the argument. I've got to be careful that we don't
Speaker 1: assume too much there. But what did the defense have
Speaker 1: to say?
Speaker 3: So the defense argued that Mona's Council had really not
Speaker 3: properly shown how the Ladies Lounge promotes equal opportunity. Greg
Speaker 3: Barnes said that the evidence that had been provided to
Speaker 3: the tribunal by Monas Council really focused on his historic discrimination.
Speaker 5: You know, it didn't show how.
Speaker 3: This Lady's Lounge was actually dealing with contemporary discrimination.
Speaker 5: And interestingly, the judge.
Speaker 3: Picked Greg Barnes up on that and said, well, but
Speaker 3: they presented the Government Status of Women report card.
Speaker 5: What about that?
Speaker 3: You know, don't you can you know, do you still
Speaker 3: make your point given that?
Speaker 5: And Greg Barnes said, yes, we do.
Speaker 3: And he also said, you know, you can't just use
Speaker 3: Section twenty six in an open slather so that anyone
Speaker 3: who has a political or social point to make can say, well,
Speaker 3: I'm going to create a space that excriminates against these,
Speaker 3: against such and such a person to make my political point.
Speaker 3: He said that that's not the way that Section twenty
Speaker 3: six is supposed to operate.
Speaker 1: So another thing Greg Barnes also brought up in court
Speaker 1: was the idea around fake paintings and that the picassos
Speaker 1: that are actually in the lounge were fake. Can you
Speaker 1: tell me why he mentioned that, what his motivation was
Speaker 1: behind that.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The reason he mentioned that was because during the tribunal
Speaker 3: part of Kersha's evidence, she talks about the lady's lounge
Speaker 3: being filled with expensive artworks, some of the most expensive
Speaker 3: artworks in the art collection, and she talks about that
Speaker 3: in the sense of men not being able to see
Speaker 3: these expensive artworks so they really can understand what it's
Speaker 3: like to be excluded. Greek Barnes's point, as I understand it,
Speaker 3: is that that evidence.
Speaker 5: That Kirsher provided was not valid.
Speaker 3: It was not correct because in fact, these so called
Speaker 3: expensive picassos weren't Picassos at all. They were painted by herself.
Speaker 3: But for Kusher, that's part of the joke. That's part
Speaker 3: of the joke of this artwork. You know, she's painting
Speaker 3: the artworks of a famous misogynist and she thinks that's
Speaker 3: that's the funny thing.
Speaker 1: There's also rumors in the art world as well that
Speaker 1: disliked the Pikassos in the lounge itself, that the case
Speaker 1: is also fake, that it's nothing more than a public distart.
Speaker 1: You've spoken to Kersher herself. What sort of sense of
Speaker 1: how seriously she's taking this did you get from her?
Speaker 3: Oh, she's taking it seriously, and I have spoken. I
Speaker 3: did put that rumor question to Kirsher and she said, no,
Speaker 3: it's it's absolutely for real. She too can understand why
Speaker 3: people might say that, but she said it's absolutely for real.
Speaker 5: Outside the this week, she talked about Jason.
Speaker 3: Loud being a gift and that women should be indebted
Speaker 3: to him.
Speaker 5: Jason Lower is a gift from day one.
Speaker 4: I love Jason Loud and he's a lovely man and
Speaker 4: he really believes in having the debate the conversation. I'm
Speaker 4: indebted to him, Braver.
Speaker 5: I think all women are.
Speaker 4: He brought this point to the fourth and I think
Speaker 4: we should ask celebrate.
Speaker 3: But she's very serious about it too. She will continue
Speaker 3: with this and we'll see where it goes from here.
Speaker 1: Gabriella. The Lady's Lounge is an artwork, and an art
Speaker 1: is often provocative. But I suppose the heart of the
Speaker 1: issue is the question does the Ladies Lounge actually promote
Speaker 1: equal opportunity? Do you think that there is equal opportunity
Speaker 1: here in regards to the whole experience of the Lady's Lounge?
Speaker 3: Well, I would, I guess I would defer to Robin Banks,
Speaker 3: who's the Tasmani's former Anti discrimination commissioner, who's written a
Speaker 3: really great essay on this, and she believes that discrimination
Speaker 3: didn't take place. All I can say is, I guess
Speaker 3: my sympathies do lie with Mona and the Lady's Lounge,
Speaker 3: having been in there, having been inside and seeing the
Speaker 3: looks of kind of like surprise and excitement of the
Speaker 3: women who had this space for themselves, particularly the young woman.
Speaker 3: That's what really struck me, the young woman who just said,
Speaker 3: it's so nice having a space just to ourselves for
Speaker 3: young women. Many, many rights have already been one for women,
Speaker 3: and yet if a young woman still feels the importance
Speaker 3: of a space like that, I think it does promote
Speaker 3: equal opportunity. There are no ladies lounges in pubs anymore,
Speaker 3: but there are still many structural inequalities in the world.
Speaker 5: And I guess I kind of.
Speaker 3: Think it's interesting that a man was so upset by
Speaker 3: not being allowed into that space that he launched legal action.
Speaker 5: In a sense, that's telling too. That is very Gabriella.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Also in the years. Today, Israel's Defense Minister Yaohegh Gallans
Speaker 1: is a new phase of the war is beginning after
Speaker 1: a second attack against Lebanon in two days. Yesterday, hundreds
Speaker 1: of walkie talkies exploded across the country, killing twenty people
Speaker 1: and injuring four hundred and fifty, just one day after
Speaker 1: thousands of personal pages were suddenly dedonated, killing twelve people,
Speaker 1: including two children, and injuring nearly three thousand. Israel is
Speaker 1: not explicitly commented on the attacks, but multiple sources indicate
Speaker 1: Israel was targeting Hesblah fighters and independent Senator Lydia Thorpe
Speaker 1: has successfully passed a motion in the Senate for greater
Speaker 1: transparency and the reporting of deaths in custody. The motion
Speaker 1: calls for the Attorney General to provide call to the
Speaker 1: reports of the age and causes of death, including instances
Speaker 1: of self harm, miscarriages and stilburths, and reporting of ongoing
Speaker 1: coronial inquests. Seven Am is a daily show from Schwartz
Speaker 1: Media in the Saturday Paper. It's produced by Shane Anderson,
Speaker 1: Zolten Veccho and Zaia Tangral. A technical producer is Attigus Bastow.
Speaker 1: We're edited by Chris Dangate and Sarah McPhee. Eric Jensen
Speaker 1: is our editor in chief. Our mixer is Travis Evans.
Speaker 1: Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan
Speaker 1: of Envelope Audio. Seven Am is hosted by Ruby Jones
Speaker 1: and myself, Daniel James. See you next week.