Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I intend to speak only very briefly, but since my circumstances have been discussed as part of this debate I think I should share some insight into the discussion. Firstly, I support the perspective put very clearly by Senator Evans. There are a couple of issues we need to think about in this discussion. I certainly support Senator Hogg in applying the standing orders, but to Senator Ferguson I would say: the standing orders are not quite as clear or straightforward as you perceive them to be, so consideration of these issues by the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure is clearly warranted.

Picking up the point that Senator Joyce made about the overall circumstances of those of us who take the opportunity to put that red pin in our lapel: certainly that is an obligation that we all carry but, by the same token and as Senator Evans said, we want—and certainly I support—a parliament that is generally representative of our community. That has been one of the passions that have driven my participation in this place. Despite extraordinary sacrifices for children and family, it has been the objective to ensure that women with young children and families are also able to make those sacrifices to contribute to our political debate. And to stress that you do need to effect some changes.

If we go back to my circumstances in 1995: yes, I was the first senator to be accompanied in the chamber by a very young baby. We often do not know before we arrive in the chamber, depending upon what else we are doing, what the actual vote is. Certainly in a larger party, depending upon what your other commitments are, you may come to a vote and then ascertain what that vote involves. When I had a very young baby I would often use the time later in the day to spend time—to bond—with my infant. That would usually be during our caucus, party or policy committee meetings, and I would come down if a vote was called to clarify what it was.

There was an incident—I do not intend to go into the detail—that led me then to have a discussion with my whip, which then led to a further discussion with Michael Beahan, as the President. We reached an understanding rather than a ruling, Senator Brown, that—as a consequence of those circumstances, and because this parliament makes no special arrangements for women shortly after they have given birth to a child—were I, in exceptional circumstances, to need to attend a vote and had I no alternatives available to me at the time as to where to place my infant then, under those circumstances, he would avoid applying the standing orders.

There have been other circumstances where these standing orders have not been applied. Much older children have essentially not had the standing orders applied to them—mostly, I suspect, because it was a one-off occasion. With Senator Winston Crane, it was his valedictory speech. It would have been a bit difficult to take the opportunity to have a discussion with Senator Crane after his valedictory speech and really do much to apply the standing orders, since he was not returning to the Senate chamber again after that. But the point I make—and picking up Senator Joyce’s point—is that, while our parliamentary system makes no allowances, such as some other parliaments do, for women shortly after they have given birth to a child, we need a system that allows women under those circumstances to continue to work in the parliament.

My understanding with Michael Beahan related to a view of mine which was that most women ordinarily take three months maternity leave after the birth of a child. Certainly my two young children attended the chamber once or maybe twice during that period because I had them with me in the evening and needed to attend a vote. There is a difference between that informal understanding with Michael Beahan and the rule that Natasha Stott Despoja was able to introduce into the standing orders after the incident that occurred in the Victorian parliament. In my case, the breastfeeding rule probably would not have helped much; I was not that successful at breastfeeding. But these are the difficulties around interpretation of the standing orders as they currently stand. Once you look at the informal understanding about a baby under about three months, and then you look at the circumstances today, more than 10 years later, it is difficult to see, really, where that line should be drawn.

It is an issue that I think the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure should address. It is an issue that is important to facilitating women’s participation in this parliament. The standing orders are not as clear as we might like them to be about how these circumstances might be interpreted. I certainly support Senator Hogg in applying those standing orders. But the main issue that, to me, has been missing in this debate is an understanding, within the parliament to a degree but also within the broader community, that our working lives are very different to those of people in most workplaces. The hours we spend here and the type of work we are doing—and trying to match that with a family life—are very different from regular work arrangements.

That is why, as Senator Ferguson pointed out, we have had significant improvements over the more than 10 years that I have been in this place. Yes, some flexibility has been introduced in balancing the working life that young women may have. Yes, we succeeded in establishing family lounge facilities. Yes, we succeeded in establishing breastfeeding facilities. Yes, we eventually succeeded in establishing an appropriate childcare service. And, yes, we are able to operate in this place far more effectively than we may have been in the past. But I support this being addressed by the Procedure Committee because I think there are a range of issues that this parliament can move forward with, through some rational, sensible consideration.