He had earlier taught me in a large lecture theatre when I was an undergraduate arts/law student, but I only met him when I started writing about Australian citizenship as a legal scholar. Stuart's work on civics and citizenship made him an obvious mentor, but he was more than that. He was an exemplar citizen, to use Professor Frank Bongiorno's recent dub, and an inspiring historian and teacher.

In 1994 Stuart led an inquiry into reviving civics and citizenship education. It found little understanding and awareness in the public of the Australian system of government - our federal structure and of the Commonwealth constitution. But there was a spark of hope with the inquiry's finding of a higher level of interest in civic issues, and an appreciation of the value of citizenship.

Stuart wrote about this in a 1997 parliamentary paper, asking: "How is that aspiration [the higher level of interest] to be connected to knowledge and understanding? How might we promote the civic capacity?" In other words, how do we ensure that all Australians have the knowledge and wherewithal to be truly active citizens?

The inquiry's recommendations dealt mostly with school education, and were accepted in 1995 by the Keating government and later implemented by the Coalition ministry.

In 1997, Stuart felt that if he had had a chance to rewrite the report, he would have done so even more convinced that an understanding of the history of citizenship holds the key to a higher interest in and appreciation of civic issues. In that same year, I published one of my early articles on the history of citizenship in Australia, around which we had great conversations. Those chats were but one example of Stuart as a model of academic collegiality (as many have written), and it is hard to estimate how many references he wrote for me for various fellowships and awards which, thanks in no small part to him, I am proud to have held.

In mourning his death last November, I began revisiting his penultimate book, Australia's Boldest Experiment: War and Reconstruction in the 1940s. While some attention has been given to the book given its relevance as essentially a guide to a post-COVID reconstruction of Australia (despite having been published in 2015), it is the sections of Stuart's book about women and their role in post-war reconstruction that stand out for me. They illustrate how some things have changed since those days but, powerfully, how many things remain shockingly the same.

Flora Eldershaw, a Sydney history graduate, school teacher, distinguished novelist and the first woman president of the Fellowship of Australian Writers, was recruited by the government in the early 1940s to the small reconstruction division within Harold Holt's Scientific and Industrial Research Department to advise on the role of women. She had three strikes against her already - she was the only woman in the division, the only person without an economics degree, and also the oldest of the group. But she rose above the prejudices of her time, and subsequently did what most advising government should do - she consulted with a diverse group of women. She met with the Housewives Association, the National Council of Women, the Country Women's Association, and the Federation of University Women, all of them keen to be involved. She reported their key concerns - "employment, living conditions, education, child welfare, health, legal rights and the circumstances of Aboriginal women". But, as Stuart explains, the then head of the division poured cold water on her proposal, warning "it was desirable to avoid giving official recognition to conferences of rather miscellaneous organisations". Those advocating on gender policy today, consulted for their views, would feel a sense of déjà vu. Ah yes, the experience of spending time and energy responding to calls from government to contribute to policy development, consulting widely, and then having your ideas ignored.

Another part of Stuart's book highlighting women's involvement in the post-war reconstruction project is the section on housing. Government publicity around this was aimed at "Mrs Australia", with the promise that she would be able to build her dream house. This led to the South Australian secretary of the Housewives Association complaining her organisation was inundated with bulletins "on such inane matters as the height of wash troughs".

In May of 1942, an opposition member asked the Prime Minister how many boards, trusts, commissions and other special agencies had been set up as part of the reconstruction. He wished to highlight the proliferation of such bodies, and asked a supplementary question about the number of women involved as members. The answer was 67 organisations, with 387 members, but just one woman (with a very ironic name - Ellen Couchman). She had served on the Women's Employment Board, and was there to represent ... all Australian women! As Stuart reports, women's organisations were less than impressed.

Ever since Flora Eldershaw had approached those organisations back in 1941, they had been advocating for their involvement in the post-war reconstruction. Having been earlier rebuffed, they were "particularly exasperated" by the omission of any reference to women in the Constitution Alteration (War Aims and Reconstruction) Bill the government introduced to the Parliament. The United Associations of Women wrote to the PM asking him "to introduce an amendment which would free women once and for all from the multifarious discriminations and limitations imposed on them by laws and regulations". The Federation of Women Voters urged that the bill should include "equal economic, political and social rights". As president of the Council for Women in War Work, the historian Kathleen Fitzpatrick proposed the elimination of all forms of sex discrimination. She argued: "This country cannot be considered a democracy while women remain, despite legal equality, in effect a subject race." These appeals had no effect, and the only women present at the constitutional convention in November were 12 members of the Women's Royal Australian Navy Service who acted as orderlies.

Eighty years later, those appeals are familiar to women working for equality in Australia. On Sunday February 27, the Women's March 4 Justice will be holding its anniversary event, remembering the March 15, 2021 march that drew over 110,000 women and their allies in more than 200 cities and towns across Australia to draw the government's attention to the ongoing, unaddressed demand for equality and justice for women in Australian society.

This inequality underpins women's safety inside our very own Parliament House, and led to the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces report.

The report highlights the desperate need to ensure women are safe in every dwelling in Australia, let alone live in an equal and just society. Women's safety is directly related to gender equality; without one we cannot have the other. The report is clear that in workplaces where women are equally present as leaders, a more equal workplace leads to a safer workplace and a safer society.

Stuart Macintyre emphasised, in his writing of the reconstruction project, that once it became official policy, there were determined efforts to stimulate popular participation. In this part, the most ambitious was the desire to "enlarge citizenship and establish a new relationship between government and the people". In the remaining months before the federal election, we should all be energised by the moment we are in, seeking to work towards a post-pandemic normal, to demand the same of those elected, and use our citizenship - our vote - to have a government that better reflects the needs of Australian women and men, working towards a society that is safe for all. And Stuart Macintyre's collegiality should be an inspiration to active citizenship beyond the vote - looking out for our fellow members as we move forward as an inclusive nation.