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

I seek leave to amend the motion standing in my name relating to that objection to:

Omit all words after ‘that’ and substitute:

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—

paragraph (2) being that no person other than a senator or an officer be allowed in the chamber—

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.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we continue with that, Senator Brown, leave has been requested. Is leave granted?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of clarification before we consent to leave, which we are certainly inclined to do: is this still a dissent motion, or is this now taking the form of another motion?

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Bob Brown has sought leave to make an amendment which would make it a reference to the Procedures Committee. Is leave granted?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is quite important, because the original motion was from Senator Brown, dissenting from the President’s ruling. Is this now no longer a motion dissenting from the President’s ruling? That is the first point of clarification.

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

It would be if the amendment that I propose were to be adopted. Until that point we are still, effectively, debating a dissent motion. If I can help the leader, the intention of this amendment is effectively to withdraw the dissent motion and replace it with a reference to the committee.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of clarification: I wonder why Senator Brown did not withdraw his dissent motion and seek leave to move a separate motion.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think Senator Brown is seeking to amend the motion so as to refer the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure in the place of a dissent motion. You could have an argument about whether that is the best way of achieving it, but effectively that will be the result if it is supported. I can indicate on behalf of the government that it will be supporting the amended version. We would not support a dissent motion. I think this is a way of getting to that point, even if it is a little clumsy procedurally—that is not a criticism, Senator Brown. I think we will end up, if leave is granted, at the right spot.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that we will support the change of the nature of the motion on the understanding that we are not debating a dissent motion on a ruling of the President.

Leave granted.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Brown, because I think it is the sensible way to take forward the issue that has been raised by these circumstances. I was not in the chamber at the time—I was in the middle of a cabinet meeting—but I have seen the footage and the coverage of the matter and I have spoken to the President about it.

The thing I want to make absolutely clear is that there is no way the government would have supported a motion disagreeing with the President’s ruling. His ruling was absolutely correct and in alignment with the standing orders, and I think Senator Brown has conceded that. It is important that that be put on the record. Senator Hogg, the President, made a ruling which exactly upheld the standing orders of the Senate and he performed his functions as he should have. The fact that he was gracious afterwards in saying that he could perhaps have handled the matter better is a tribute to him. The fact that he was conciliatory, gracious and sensitive is a mark of the man and has greatly enhanced the way this matter has been handled. He has also made it his policy not to speak about it in the press and to try to deal with the issue. He was aware that Senator Hanson-Young was upset and he wanted to deal with it as sensitively as he could. I think he has done that. I think he has done himself great credit in this and has confirmed why the Senate thought it appropriate to make him President.

I also want to put on the record that I have no truck with the view that this was a Greens stunt. I have seen the footage of what occurred in the chamber. I have seen the reactions. This was not a stunt. This was a normal, human reaction in a difficult situation, and I think that to make allegations about stunts et cetera is not helpful. I think this was a difficult circumstance where everybody behaved as they do in emotional and difficult circumstances and it all got a little untidy in the Senate. That is just the way people are and how those circumstances develop. So I do not think there is any question of blame or criticism of people. As I say, I think everyone has reacted fairly maturely after the incident and people are aware that Senator Hanson-Young was upset. From what I could see, she was crying in one corner and the child was crying in another corner—it was generally going very well from the President’s point of view! It left him feeling he was in a very difficult situation. The bottom line is that the Parliament needs to continue to look at the way we deal with work and family balance and how we deal with issues of children and our families in trying to do our jobs here.

As you know, this government has made a very strong commitment to trying to promote women into the parliament. In this chamber, we did have 50 per cent female representation. I think female representation is just below 50 per cent at the moment. We take it very seriously. I think the parliament is better for the larger number of women represented. We have had to make some changes to accommodate women. Of course, I quickly add that that does not mean that women are responsible for children; all parents are responsible for children. It has been about trying to make parliament more accessible for members of parliament who are mothers. That is why the rules were changed to allow breastfeeding in the chamber, in recognition of the increasing number of young women who were breastfeeding babies and trying to do their jobs. It was an appropriate response from the parliament to that issue. I think people generally accepted that that was a good move forward.

This government is very committed to trying to improve work and family balance, be it by supporting the child care centre opening at Parliament House—a long overdue development—or through our paid maternity leave policy. We are sensitive to work and family balance and trying to deal with responsibilities as parents and as parliamentarians, but it is equally the case that we are in a workplace. I always compare us to fly-in, fly-out workers. That has been my approach to the Senate over the years. I arrive on the last plane and leave on the first. With all due deference to Canberra, I do that for my work and family balance. I try to get home as quickly as I can to try to maintain some sort of balance in my life and take my parenting responsibilities seriously.

Bu this is a workplace. It is the Parliament of Australia. Getting the balance between our responsibilities in the proper operation of the parliament and bringing children in is a very difficult issue. I do not have a finalised view on that. I think we ought to take this very seriously before we get to the point of widening the current arrangements. I must say that, if I had been in the chamber, I would have immediately offered a pair to Senator Hanson-Young. That should have been how we dealt with it at the time, but that is easy to say after the event. Since I was a whip many years ago, I have always argued very strongly that family commitments are the first priority for pairs and that other obligations—be it travel or whatever—come a very long second to people with family or health related issues. Both sides of the parliament have always paired anyone who needed it. Pairing the Greens has been a good development.

I think referring the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure to work through some of those issues is an appropriate way to deal with it. As I have said, I do not think we will necessarily be supporting a broad widening of the capacity to bring children into the parliament during divisions, but I accept that there have been instances in the past, as Senator Brown said. It does often cheer the senators up, but there is a question about the appropriateness of having children in the chamber during a division. I assumed it was just the Greens trying to get an extra vote on Senator Brown’s bill, but then it occurred to me that Family First would probably do better out of such an arrangement! How many kids have you got, Senator Fielding?

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not enough!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know whether it was intended that they be counted. I think this is a way of resolving the issues. I think everyone has acted perfectly appropriately. I do not have any criticism of anyone involved. Having the Procedure Committee have a look at the practicalities is a sensible way to proceed. I am not suggesting that we are going to support any particular change. Neither the government nor the senators have had a chance to discuss that at the moment. We think it is a difficult issue, but we are certainly happy to have a look at it and see if any changes need to be made beyond those which we agreed to a couple of years ago.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not wish to debate directly all of the merits of Senator Brown’s motion as I obviously have an interest in the matter, so I want to leave that discussion to those in the Procedure Committee and the other members of the chamber here. Because this has come about from an incident on Thursday afternoon involving my daughter and me, I felt it was necessary to put on record what actually happened.

There have been many things said about what happened last Thursday afternoon when, during the vote on the Greens junk food bill, I was asked to remove my two-year-old daughter, Kora, whom I had brought into the chamber for a very brief period of time. Many of the things said are incorrect, false and, in some cases, just plain nasty. Most of these misinformed comments and attacks were made by people who were not even here themselves to see what happened and have not bothered to contact me to find out the facts. For the sake of getting the facts straight, I want to put on record what happened and why I believe we need a mature discussion about how we as parliamentarians and representatives of our diverse communities manage these issues into the future.

For the record, as a senator, I am very privileged to be able to bring my daughter to Canberra from Adelaide on the weeks that parliament is sitting. I employ a nanny, who travels with us so that I am able to continue working knowing that my daughter has the best possible care while I am busy representing my electorate and working hard in the Senate. I am not unique in doing this: other members and senators have done just the same in the past. As a parent of a young child, it would be impossible to do this job without the help of child care, both in Parliament House and back in my electorate office.

When we are here in Canberra, Kora comes into Parliament House, where the nanny cares for her. During the long day, stretching from 7 am to late into the night, I am able to grab what time I can to see her on lunch and dinner breaks. It was around 4.45 pm last Thursday that I had taken my daughter, Kora, for a quick walk around the building to say goodbye to her before she left with the nanny back to Adelaide to spend the next few days with her father. They were leaving at 4.55 pm. This goodbye ritual is something the two of us do every Thursday before she flies back to Adelaide. We often drop by my colleagues’ offices and walk past the chamber, and Kora says goodbye to them as well.

The bells started ringing during this time and I realised I would not be able to drop Kora back upstairs at my office—where the nanny was packing Kora’s toys and getting ready to go. I did not have enough time to go up and then back down to the chamber to vote on the bill, which I believed was important. I believe as senators we have a responsibility to attend every vote and must attempt to be on time on every occasion, not just when the numbers are close. I had not missed a vote in this place, and I was not about to start missing them last Thursday afternoon.

Knowing that the vote would only take a few minutes and I was about to not see Kora for a day so, I simply brought her onto the chamber floor to sit quietly next to me while my vote was counted. Unlike formal debate or question time, a division only takes a matter of minutes and is more like a headcount than formal proceedings. Senators chat away, sitting in other people’s seats—the only rule I had been taught was that you do not move so you cannot be double counted. I believed the vote would be over in a matter of minutes and we would be able to dash out of the chamber and Kora would go off in the car to the airport, back home to see her dad. I was planning to go back to my office to work.

I had in the past been caught on my own with Kora, spending a short break between meetings and debates outside my office when the bells had rung for a vote and I had gone straight to the chamber, not wanting to miss out on my vote being counted. On both previous occasions my staff had run downstairs to take my daughter from me, but the doors had been locked and Kora and I were stuck inside. No-one, including the President, had raised this with me as an issue in the past. On each of those occasions I left the chamber immediately after the vote, having been there for only a matter of four or five minutes, and gave Kora back to her nanny so I could get back to the work of the Senate. It is important to note that I am not the first senator to do this. As I understand it, in the other chamber, the House of Representatives, members of parliament have brought their children into the chamber with them for votes, not often but occasionally, and it has never caused any harm. In fact, in the mid-1990s a senator who is still sitting here today was able to bring her young son into the chamber in an emergency, based on an understanding she had with the then President.

For some reason, last Thursday was different. When the President asked Kora to be removed, I was surprised that all of a sudden the rule was being enforced with little warning or conversation. As I got up to take her to the back of the room, hoping my staff had seen what had happened and were running quickly down to help me, the President kept insisting, despite my attempts to find somebody to give her to without disturbing the vote. Luckily, by then my staff had reached the doors and I passed my daughter to them. But through all of the kerfuffle, the President’s orders and people trying to take her from me—and I must point out that people were trying to help, but they were grabbing at her as I was trying to get her out of the chamber—Kora became quite upset and was taken from my arms and locked outside. I, of course, became quite upset as well. For those of you who were here, I think you can all agree that for the brief time it took to count the votes it was extremely tense in this place. And yet there was no need for it to have transpired like that. My daughter was not disturbing anyone; she was only there for a few short minutes. She only became upset and cried once she was taken from me.

I think the process of how all this occurred could have been handled better. A little flexibility for a couple of minutes, at a time when senators are usually chatting away loudly as formal debate is on hold, is all that was required. I am thankful that upon reflection the President himself has acknowledged that this could have been handled better, and I welcome the opportunity for us to discuss the appropriateness and the need for both enforcement of standing orders and flexibility, based on common sense.

I hope that as mature, intelligent and caring members of this chamber, who all represent diverse sections of our community, we can move forward with these issues and I hope that the incident on Thursday and the experience my daughter and I have had as a result over the past few days never have to be repeated. Yes, there are rules, and there are rules for a reason. The Senate is a serious workplace—and I wish some members of this place would remember that during question time. We make laws here, we represent our people, we make decisions that are integral to the running of our great nation. Rules are needed and they need to be respected—of course they do—and, with that, we must all use common sense.

I am not arguing, and never have argued, that children, or any other non-senators for that matter, should be present during the normal proceedings of parliament. I do not believe it is appropriate for the Senate to become a creche—far from it. I have never suggested that we all bring our kids into the chamber for debates, or while we give speeches, or during question time. But on rare occasions, just like when we bend the rules to recommit a vote for a senator who missed getting to the chamber in time, perhaps allowing a little flexibility to a small child who is caught spending a few short minutes with their mum or their dad when the only thing the parent needs to do is sit on the right side of the chamber and be counted, surely it is not such a bad thing. It will not happen often, and hopefully not at all, but, if it does, let us not be so rigid in this place that we condemn senators who are also parents and who take both jobs as seriously as each other.

There is indeed an element of cynicism in politics, yet suggestions—from some who were not even present in the chamber at the time and did not bother to show up to vote themselves—that what happened to my daughter and me on Thursday was some kind of stunt are offensive and ignorant. It is this type of cynicism and crass commentary that implies our parliaments should not be reflective of the communities we represent and dismisses the responsibility of all parliamentarians to promote respect for others in different circumstances and the importance of family and family values.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish first to echo the remarks of Senator Chris Evans. The opposition would not have supported a motion of dissent from the President’s ruling. The President has a clear role, and that is to uphold standing orders. Whether standing orders need to be adjusted is a matter for a separate debate, but we certainly would not have supported a dissent motion over the President’s ruling.

I am sure the coalition senators who witnessed the event in the chamber wished that it had never happened. But this whole issue begs more questions than there are answers. I support Senator Bob Brown’s motion to have this matter referred to the Procedure Committee, where it can be debated very clearly and without time constraints. We can discuss the matters concerned and see whether a review of standing orders is required. It is difficult to understand how a review might be framed, apart from the review already provided in the standing orders for breastfeeding mothers, which I think is a very sensible and modern approach to the parliamentary process.

Questions that come to my mind and to colleagues’ minds—and, over the weekend, some of the issues that were reported to me when I was at different functions—include things like: what if it were a court of law? Do you bring children into a court chamber, which is likened to the Senate chamber? What if every senator brought a child of that age in at the same time? I am not posing answers; I am just posing questions. Some of these matters do need to be considered. From a practical perspective, for a whip, counting does become more difficult with more numbers in the chamber—sometimes senators can be obscured or diversions are created.

As chief whip on this side, I can say that we would always grant a pair—and I think Senator Evans mentioned that the Chief Government Whip would agree—especially for family reasons and especially if Senator Hanson-Young or any other senator found themselves in a situation where they needed to spend more time with their child. And I think it was for a very legitimate reason. We would have granted a pair if the vote had been a closer vote. Could I indicate also that the vote of the chamber would not have been altered if Senator Hanson-Young had not been present. I know that Senator Brown or the Greens whip, Senator Siewert, could have easily indicated that Senator Hanson-Young would have voted with her colleagues but was unavoidably detained outside the chamber with her infant. I am sure that is very acceptable. We would certainly have considered that and allowed that to take place.

I am a bit concerned that some state parliamentarian over the weekend was reported indicating that this parliament does not allow women who are breastfeeding to bring infants into the chamber. I think that is probably a misinformed member of another parliament, because we certainly can do that. The standing orders do provide for that.

I think it is very sensible that Senator Brown has advocated that this matter go to the Procedure Committee. I look forward to the discussions at the Procedure Committee and to getting feedback from senators around the chamber. If a review of that particular standing order is required, I think that is the place that that review should take place. I know that the input would be welcomed by all senators. The Greens are represented on the Procedure Committee, where that can take place. So, with those words, the coalition is appreciative of Senator Brown changing his motion in relation to this and not dissenting from the President’s ruling, which we believe was correct, but also raising the matter that, if we need to review procedures, we can do so with the right committee, taking into account the full range of issues that could present complications if children are permitted into the chamber—not ruling that out but certainly looking at every possible outcome if it were opened up for others. We appreciate Senator Hanson-Young’s position in this, but the standing orders have been quite clear for some time, and the standing orders at this point in time were upheld correctly by the President.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, can I say that we are debating this today because Senator Brown moved a dissent from the President’s ruling. I do not believe this is an amendment to his original motion; I believe that it is a totally new motion and that in doing this Senator Brown should have withdrawn his dissent and sought leave to move another motion. I know technically he can do it this way, but I do not believe it is the right way to handle the business of the Senate. A reference to the Procedure Committee can be done by letter; it does not need a motion to go through the Senate chamber. Therefore, I believe that it was wrong of Senator Brown to move a dissent from the President’s ruling when, in fact, all the President was doing was upholding the standing orders—which he is obliged to do.

Senator Brown talks about an ad hoc ruling by the President on Thursday. It was not an ad hoc ruling; he was upholding the standing orders. Can I say that the President has my total support, and probably the total support of all of my colleagues, in the actions that he took. He had overlooked this breach of the standing orders on previous occasions. He had overlooked a breach of the standing orders by the same senator. If it were the wish of Senator Hanson-Young to bring a child into the chamber—and, in fact, as Senator Brown said, it has happened on other occasions—why on earth didn’t Senator Hanson-Young at least seek an appointment with the President and discuss the issue with him instead of just bringing a child into the chamber in breach of standing orders? It left the President in a very unenviable position. I think that Senator Hanson-Young could have made life easier for both herself and the President if she had asked the President, ‘Is it all right if, on occasions when I am caught short with the baby and the division bells are rung, I bring the child in?’ Then maybe Senator Hogg could have discussed the issue and discussed it with other people. As it so happens—I do not think the President would mind me saying this—he and I had a discussion about that very matter the night before this occurred, because of the fact that Senator Hanson-Young had unexpectedly brought a child into the chamber on a previous occasion. Certainly it was unexpected for the President.

Can I say to senators present that we have come a long way, since I first entered this chamber, in making working conditions in this place family friendly. We have a childcare centre, which was urged by senators and others for a long time. That childcare centre is here and it is available for people to use if they so desire. Breastfeeding infants are allowed into the chamber. That came into place some time ago. I know Senator Collins was here back in the earlier days when things seemed to be a little stricter. Senator Brown talked about Senator Collins bringing a child into the chamber—I am sure that was not done without some discussion with President Beahan but I would stand corrected if that is not the case.

The court of public opinion seems to have a different view to that of Senator Brown and Senator Hanson-Young in relation to this issue. We have seen the court of public opinion at work over the whole weekend. I have never seen online polling over such an issue, where 85 per cent of the population do not agree with Senator Hanson-Young’s action that was taken last Thursday in relation to bringing a child into the chamber. Where else can you take a child into the workplace? That is the question that is being asked by a lot of people. It is a workplace. It is also the place where nationwide decisions are made. I think there are certain observances that should take place here, and one of those is the upholding of the standing orders.

If you want to change standing orders, change them before you break them. Do not break the standing orders in the hope that they can be changed afterwards—and this is what is happening in this particular situation. An issue has occurred and Senator Brown, who moved dissent from the President’s ruling, has now said: ‘Well, I’m not too sure, having read the court of public opinion, whether I should proceed with this. I’ll change this and refer it to the Procedure Committee.’ I am not so sure that people outside of this place would look favourably on our changing the standing orders.

I do not know why Senator Hanson-Young did not ask for a pair. I have no idea why she did not ask for a pair, but I do know that Senator Brown restrained her and made her stay in the chamber. I do not know why Senator Hanson-Young did not ask for a pair, because I know both of the whips are very accommodating. Senator Hanson-Young, I am quite sure you would have been able to get a pair on this occasion. Senator Hanson-Young also said: ‘We bend the rules. We recommit a vote when someone is missing.’ We are not bending the rules; we are working within the standing orders when a vote is recommitted. The standing orders in this place have been in place for a long, long time. They have been changed over time to accommodate the wishes of other people. Can I say that it is not bending the rules to recommit a vote, because standing orders make the provision that it is possible to do it. Every situation is covered in some way by the standing orders in this place.

Senator Brown, I will not oppose this going to the Procedure Committee. You can be quite sure of that. As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I welcome this issue coming to the Procedure Committee. It could have been done by way of a letter to the Procedure Committee which would have avoided all of this debate. Indeed, most of the matters that we discuss at the Procedure Committee come by way of letter rather than by resolution of the Senate. I think that would have been the appropriate thing to do. I want to conclude by saying that I firmly support the President of this chamber in the action that he took last Thursday. It was his right to uphold standing orders. They should be upheld in every situation. If people do not like the standing orders then they should seek to try and change them. The time to change standing orders is prior to breaking standing orders or in defiance of standing orders, not before you have had the opportunity to try and change them. Thank you.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are many places in this workplace, the parliament, where you can take children. In fact, virtually all of this Parliament House is accessible to children. You can take them to most places and in many cases you are encouraged to go there with them. But there is a special place in this parliament and it is the bar of the Senate. Go past that bar and you are in the voting section of this chamber—of course the attendants can go there too. There are 76 people in our nation who are elected to that bar and that is an incredible privilege. Everything about going beyond that bar of the Senate must be respected.

We have heard it asked: what are the alternatives to taking a child into the chamber for a vote? First of all, you can get a pair. Second of all, if you are stuck without a pair, you can stand out of bounds and ask for a pair, and I am sure you would get one. There are staff members who could look after kids. So many of us here have children. I have four children and I would love to bring my children down here. Since 1 January this year, apart from the week I was sick, I have spent seven days at my own house. I would like to spend some more time with my children. But this is the sacrifice that you make when you come here. When you get to stick that red pin in your lapel, you have to make that sacrifice. It is an incredible honour.

In this debate we are entering into all sorts of confusions. If you can take in a baby, when does a baby become a toddler? When is a toddler no longer a toddler? I have heard the argument, ‘It was only a minor division.’ When is a minor division a major division? When is an important issue not an important issue? And there are other members of our families apart from children. Could we take in other members of our family who are sick if we wanted to? These are the sorts of questions and confusions that come into this debate when you start breaking the rules.

I have heard it said that we must treat this place like we have heard it described in metaphors. ‘It is like court.’ How would you feel if you went to a court and you saw the judge with their child there for the day because they thought it was a minor case, or if the defence attorney turned up with their kid because they thought the case was not that important? Who knows when something is important and when it is not important. It is determined by the issue.

I heard the accusation that I was not in the chamber then. I can tell you why I was not in the chamber. It was a motion about junk food that we knew did not have legs and I had an interview at the time with some people, so I remained in that interview—as so many senators do in this place when they see motions moved by the Greens. If other things are happening that are more important and you do not want to be going backwards and forwards from an interview with constituents or with groups who want to be represented, then you are better off getting to the conclusion of the interview because your vote is not vital in the chamber at that point in time. That was the case for Senator Hanson-Young: her vote was not vital; it was not going to determine a change in that vote that day.

This accusation has also been made: how dare I say this was a stunt? I would not have said so, if it had been another party. The Greens are known for their stunts. The Greens are a party that embellish so much of what they do with stunts. They cannot be the party that cries wolf and, at the same time, one day when something backfires on them get upset about it. People have a sense of cynicism about so much of what the Greens do. This action was all of a sudden followed up by a doorstop at the Senate door and then non-stop media the next day—in fact, more media than the Prime Minister got, and he was being accused of a whole range of other issues. The natural inclination is to say, ‘There is something that does not smell correct about this.’

The other issue, of course, is that it impinged on the great sympathy of this place, but when Senator Brown reached out and grabbed Senator Hanson-Young’s arm it turned from an issue that could have been dealt with expediently into a wider issue. It did then turn into a political issue. There are so many people in the workplace who want to take their child to work—for example, at a bank or at an accountancy practice—that we in this place have to be extremely careful not to see ourselves as somehow of a different ilk when we have to go through the trials and tribulations that other people in workplaces around Australia have to go through in their day-to-day lives. Quite obviously, no-one wants to see a child distressed and no-one wants to see a senator distressed, but it is a two-way street.

This issue could have been resolved. Senator Brown knows the processes of this place back to front. If anybody knows the standing orders in this joint, Senator Brown does. Senator Brown had a duty, as the leader of his party, to warn his party member: ‘Do you understand that at this point you are in breach of standing order 175? Just be warned about that. It might be wiser at this point to try to get a pair. You could quickly get one. Senator Williams is the whip; get a pair right now.’ There were processes in place that Senator Brown, as the leader of his party, had at his disposal to effect, but he chose not to. He chose to turn it into a display by dissenting from the President’s ruling, which took it to another level. And when, Senator Brown, you choose to take it to another level you cannot complain about what comes next. What we had before us was dissent from the President’s ruling, but the President was doing no more than enforcing standing order 175. In fact, that is the duty of the President: to enforce the standing orders.

We have to be extremely careful, because the eyes of Australia are watching this. You can see from blog sites, polling and a whole range of things that the public take exception if they feel we are bending the rules for ourselves. It works against us. Does this place have no sympathy or sense of inclusion for children? Quite obviously that is not the case. We have a multimillion dollar childcare facility in this building. A huge investment has been made in the capacity of this workplace to deal with children. But, like in all workplaces and all facets of life, there are lines that cannot be crossed. The line here is not even at the door; the line is at the bar of the Senate, which you cannot go beyond unless you are a senator or an attendant.

People say, ‘You have to have latitude at certain times.’ It does not matter how slowly I am driving my car and how quiet the street is; if my child is in the front seat and the police drive past I will be picked up. I cannot say to the policeman, ‘You’ve got to show me latitude.’ He will just say, ‘This is the law; this is why we have it; you are booked.’ So why should we have an exception to the rule here that people in the street cannot get from day to day in their lives?’ This is the reality of life.

We should do everything we possibly can in this place to involve children and to involve the family in the process. I have often spoken about remote voting and having things online to give us greater capacity to spend time with our families. I do not get much support for that. These are some of the issues. Nonetheless, I made the sacrifice, decided to come here, decided to stick that red pin in my lapel—but so did everybody else in this chamber. For that we make sacrifices, and for those sacrifices we get paid $127,600 per year with a $32,000 allowance and a minimum of four staff. With those resources at your disposal, with the resources in this building such as the childcare facility, with the knowledge you have of the chamber and with the support and guidance of the leader of your party, you should be prepared to come in here knowing that only you are authorised to go beyond the bar.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I sincerely thank all members for their contributions to this debate. I am sure all the contributions will be taken into account if, as seems likely, the Procedure Committee gets this reference. I reiterate that on Friday night I went and saw the President and, having used the device of flagging dissent, said that I wanted to consider that over the weekend, to look at a more positive outcome. And I am very pleased to say that that is potentially in the offing.

To Senator Ferguson and Senator Barnaby Joyce, I would point out that there have been some precedents in the matter of allowing children here under very limited and special circumstances; that is part of the Senate record. There has not been a rule which said that there was a prohibition, and that line should never be crossed. I might say to Barnaby Joyce: people tried to apply that rule on a very famous occasion 2,000 years ago. Christ said on that occasion, ‘Suffer little children to come unto me’—do not let the officials get in the way and deny children access that other people have.

I simply say that because we need a little bit of compassion in this place on occasions like this, and it is very curmudgeonly of Senator Joyce to be talking about this as a stunt, particularly when he himself said, ‘There are 76 people in our nation elected to go beyond the bar, and that is all.’ Well, he is elected to come beyond the bar but he was absent from that very important vote on Thursday night, and he tells us, by way of excuse, that he was talking with people in his room. Whether that was Mitch Hooke again or whoever he has not disclosed to us. But it was Senator Joyce’s responsibility to be here and to vote on that issue. How dare he point a finger of blame at Senator Hanson-Young, who did everything she could, despite the difficult circumstances, to be here for a vote which she knew was on an important issue, and who ran into difficulties which we now know. The big critic of this has been the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, who has no excuse for his failure to be here at all. Let me say, through you, Acting Deputy President, if the time arises when Senator Joyce finds himself on the wrong side of the rules for a perfectly human reason, I would expect that I will be one of the first to give him some latitude and show some compassion and some fair-mindedness under those circumstances—something that he has denied Senator Hanson-Young and, indeed, it is not the representation that I would have expected from his party.

I note that Senator Ferguson said Senator Hanson-Young should have asked for a pair. Again, he is a senator who was not here on Thursday. The two most trenchant critics of Hanson-Young and me and the Greens, who have come in here to cut across the general goodwill towards there being a good outcome from this measure, are the two senators who failed to turn up for the vote, whatever their excuse might be—there has been no good excuse put before the chamber—on Thursday night. Let that be on the record.

I would point out that, when I first came here, gentlemen always had to wear a coat but ladies did not. It was Senator O’Chee, again from the National Party, who demanded that I be gagged when, one hot summer’s afternoon, on a perfectly reasonable day, I came in here without a coat on. I had on a shirt and tie but no coat, and he demanded that I be ejected. I ask you: where is Senator O’Chee today?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could we have an answer to that question, please?

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

Yes, I would like an answer to it; maybe the National Party could supply it. Senators who have been here since at least five or six years ago will know that it was not permissible to take photos from the galleries—the press were not permitted to take photographs—as recently as that. It was a motion I put to change that rule, which the Senate adopted, which meant that we could have a photographer in the press gallery just a few moments ago. Before that, there was a total prohibition on photographers except for the first 30 minutes of question time—and then, bang, they were asked to leave at that stage.

We have seen the rules amended for breastfeeding—and I am interested in what Senator Collins had to say, and I thank her for her very generous contribution—but I do not know that there has ever been a mother who has breastfed in this chamber. And it is very obvious why that is likely to be so. What we are talking about is mothers bringing very young children, infants, into the chamber on occasions where they have felt that that was temporarily and very briefly a reasonable thing to do.

I think people who are elected to this place and who have children have the common sense to know what is a reasonable thing and what is not. The President must always have the discretion to intervene if they do not show that common sense. I note that all presidents since I have been here have been very good with children who come into the public galleries. We all know how disrupting it is if suddenly a child starts crying or creating a lot of noise in the public gallery—and very swiftly they are removed. Very swiftly, kindly and gently their parents are assisted to have them be taken away, and they cease to be a distraction.

I do not think it is beyond our wit and wisdom to improve the rules to make sure that some accommodation is made for mothers and, indeed, fathers who have the common sense to know that, if they bring a child in here, the child should not be disruptive, the time should be brief and it should only be done on rare occasions. Some good will come of this. I hope the Senate will vote for this reference. I know that the Procedure Committee will take into account the debate and the changing circumstances in modern Australia in 2009. I certainly hope that they will adopt the suggested amendment or something similar.

Question, as amended, agreed to.