Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move the motion as amended:

That the following proposed amendment to Standing Order 175 be referred to the Procedure Committee for consideration and report by 7 September 2009:Paragraph (3) to read “Paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of a senator breastfeeding an infant, or, at the discretion of the President, a senator caring for infant briefly, provided the business of the Senate is not disrupted.

I thank the senators and respond to comments just made that, effectively, I have withdrawn the dissent motion on the ruling of the President last Thursday. I want to do that for some important reasons. The first one is the very gracious statement by the President which followed the events in the chamber last Thursday—that he may have come to a different consideration. Secondly, I think there is the need to see, through the Procedure Committee, if we cannot find a rule which gives guidance to the President instead of leaving the President to make ad hoc rulings on what has become a recurrent issue not just for this chamber but for the House of Representatives and chambers elsewhere—in state parliaments, for example—in Australia and, indeed, overseas. If it is passed, the amended motion now asks for the Procedure Committee to consider in the next couple of months whether the rules should not be altered to allow, at the discretion of the President, a senator who is caring briefly for an infant to be present in the chamber, provided the business of the Senate is not disrupted.

I point out to the chamber that the situation of Senator Hanson-Young being accompanied by her infant in the division at the end of debate on last Thursday is not unprecedented. For example, Senator Jacinta Collins had a baby with her in 1995, and the then President, Michael Beahan, ruled that the Senator’s son could share her seat in an emergency. That was in this chamber. I am also informed that prior to 2001, Anna Burke, MP in the House of Representatives, brought her child into the chamber on two occasions, but on the second occasion she received a note from the Speaker conveying that other members had not approved. Then, perhaps more celebrated, on 7 February 2001 Mark Latham MP brought a three-month-old child into two divisions when he was left without a childminder, and the Speaker did not make a ruling on this. In other words, he did not rule that that was not acceptable. I remember very clearly 27 June 2002, when Senator Winston Crane delivered his valedictory speech in this chamber with his young daughter with him, as reported in the paper. I can recollect just general delight that Senator Crane should have made that arrangement at that time. Who can forget Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja bringing her baby—and he got a little older than ‘baby’—into this chamber on a number of occasions, without any disruption to the affairs or procedures of the Senate?

Then, of course, there was Senator Hanson-Young with her two-year-old last Thursday. I recollect that there was no disruption to the chamber from her child. She was quiet, and was happily engaged with her mother until the President made the ruling that she not be allowed to stay in the chamber. She became distressed after she was removed from Senator Hanson-Young. Indeed, so too did Senator Hanson-Young become distressed.

We are in a society—it was not the case last Thursday—in which, generally, we are parenting children at an older and older age. We are also in a society in which we want to encourage parents to be part of the political process, because that is central to the democratic aims of any society. We are certainly in a society which needs to encourage more women to enter politics.

Let me make it very clear that we do not intend that the Senate be a place for children to ordinarily be present, because that would be distracting from the matters that we have to deal with. But there are the odd occasions. We all know that parents with children can be very distressed by the separation that occurs because of the very onerous duties that fall on the shoulders of senators and members of the House of Representatives of this great nation. I think it is very sensible that we look at that matter and not leave it by default to an undirected president to have to make a ruling to allow a child to remain, which seems to be against standing orders, or to put a child out of the chamber, which goes against precedents. Our feeling is that if there is no disruption and, particularly, if there is no serious debate at hand then that is an allowable and human thing to do.

For the sake of it, I note that on the division there were 48 members present in the chamber and some 30 not here. Amongst those was one of the most trenchant critics of Senator Hanson-Young over the last few days: the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Barnaby Joyce. I accept that it is everybody’s ability to criticise, but I think that, when another senator claims that a child of a senator in this place could be used for a stunt, that is below acceptable commentary. I hope we do not hear that repeated.

I was aware of Senator Hanson-Young’s child at the back of the chamber just before the division. She told me that she was nursing her because she was about to say goodbye for 24 hours. Then the bells rang. Senators might remember that it was my legislation on banning junk food ads during children’s TV hours that was the matter at hand. The bells rang for division. It was the end of debate—there was no further debate to be had on legislation in this chamber for the week. Naturally, it seemed logical—we knew that it would be four minutes and a couple of minutes more while the count was taken—that Senator Hanson-Young enjoy that time with her young daughter. I felt sorry that the President was put in the position where he felt that he had to make that ruling and I went around very quickly, after I had spoken with Senator Hanson-Young after the very distressing moment that she had been through, to see the President and to assure him that we were not going to make an issue of his ruling, that it was a very difficult position and that what I would like to see and would think about over the weekend was guidance to be given to future presidents for what is going to be a matter that will inevitably arise in this chamber in the future.

Hence this motion, which is a proposal which can be looked at, if the vote is for it, by the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure to see if the words might not be improved or in some way altered; it is a proposal to work upon so that we sensibly arm, equip and permit the President to make a discretionary ruling in such circumstances in the future. I think that is a logical and reasonable process to take, and I thank the chamber for supporting the debate on this proposal which we are now undertaking.