Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendations of the first report of 2016 of the Procedure Committee, relating to ministerial statements and caring for infants.

I want to go through a couple of the key elements of the report. First is that the first recommendation is to adopt the temporary orders on ministerial statements as a permanent standing order. That has been working really well in practice, and the committee certainly believes it enhances the right of senators to hold ministers to account, and so we, the committee, recommend that we adopt that. And, if adopted, it will certainly add to the accountability toolkit.

The second recommendation is a recognition that the Senate as a workplace is changing and it also picks up the fact that many of our senators are now of a younger age and from time to time will have extended parental leave responsibilities, and so what the committee is proposing is that the standing order 175 be amended to allow senators briefly to care for infants in the chamber at the discretion of the President. And, provided that proceedings are not disrupted, this provision would allow for infants—would add to the current provision where we have previously enabled infants to be breastfed in the chamber and adds to the caring component of an infant. And so we believe as a committee this is likely to be used in very rare circumstances where parents have no other option but to bring an infant in with them. So the example would be that they may come in briefly for a division.

And of course, as I mentioned, we have younger senators being elected, and it will provide some flexibility in circumstances where the committee also concluded that any system of a proxy rather than bringing an infant in would be unconstitutional and therefore was not a feasible alternative. But of course we understand that parliaments are changing workplaces. They are also traditional workplaces, and some senators may feel uncomfortable about the proposed change, and others may wonder how it will work in practice. And so my suggestion is that we, obviously, apply common sense, which we have managed to do as a Senate for a very long time, and we will develop our practices over time. And certainly I think it would be useful if we would develop guidance notes for chairs, and I would propose that we work with the President and the temporary chairs to develop what we consider to be a consistent and sensible approach. Certainly at our meeting a couple of weeks ago the temporary chairs felt that they were working well as a group and that we were able to be consistent in our practice. Parliaments have their own cultures and traditions, and we would hope that we could implement this change and accommodate everyone in the Senate.

We think we can be sensible, and that we can maintain the dignity and reputation of the Senate as a workplace of the national legislature. If for any reason there are issues with the new rules, the Procedure Committee can also be asked to look at those and to test the strength of those rules. I commend the recommendations to the Senate.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution on that part of the Procedure Committee's report which relates to the caring for infants. Can I just start by praising the Procedure Committee for considering this issue. I wrote to the committee earlier this year and asked for this to be put on their agenda. I am very pleased that we have now seen the result today, whereby we are updating our standing orders such that new parents, be they mums or dads, can now briefly have care of their infant in the chamber. Obviously, this would be when there is no better option available—it is not like the chamber is really fun for kids. We can now briefly have that option, at the discretion of the President, of course, when no disturbance is caused.

I want to thank the Procedure Committee for bringing this chamber closer to the 21st century. I will note that we are still sadly a little out of step with the House. The reason I raised this issue earlier in February was that the Senate has had a long tradition of allowing breastfeeding in the chamber, a tradition that I strongly support, but not all of our state parliaments share those good pro-bonding pro-female rules. We have had that long tradition, but earlier this year the House actually updated their rules to be even more family-friendly than us here in the red chamber.

Clearly, there is a bit of rivalry between the two chambers. I thought it unfair that members in that place be allowed to have care of an infant while the Senate was still restricted to the rules that we must be breastfeeding our infant at the time. Hence the suggestion that we modernise those rules. Again, I congratulate the Procedure Committee for looking at this rule. But I do note that I thought it was a little disappointing that we saw fit to put some fetters on that rule, such that it was a discretionary decision of the President, that it was only for a brief time and that it was only where no disturbance was caused. I am sure that those parameters will be adhered to, but I thought it was perhaps a little disappointing that they needed to be spelled out, given that the House rules were a bit more generous in that regard and said simply that a member may have care of an infant in the chamber.

But the 21st century is here, and we are slowly getting closer to it in this chamber. I instigated this process before I fell pregnant. So it was not motivated by self-interest; it was motivated by a desire to make sure that this place is more family-friendly so that we can get more young women representing their states here in this chamber.

We are not doing so well in terms of gender representation. Overall, the parliament is at about 30 per cent female, and here in the Senate we are quite close to that as well. It is better than it was, but it is not quite as good as it needs to be. This parliament has gone backwards with the recent loss of some female senators on the government side who were then replaced by men. So we are actually heading backwards in this most recent term of parliament. We need to arrest that and turn it around.

Part of the reason we need to do that—

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government, not us.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they are the government. You guys are not there yet. You will have to do better to get there. Good luck. Where was I? We are getting there in terms of gender representation but we still have a long way to go. This is one step along the way.

I want to say that this is an important change. It is important to make sure that parliament is considered a viable option for young women as a career choice. It should not be something they think they have to delay until after their child-rearing years.

Importantly, I want to stress that this change will also be able to be used by male members of parliament who have infants. We know that the gender workforce participation of women is lower than that of men. We know there is a huge gender pay gap and we also know that women do far more unpaid labour than men. Part of the way we change all of that and get better equity in the workforce for women is by men stepping up and doing more of that unpaid labour in the home—and child care, whether it is in the home or the workplace.

The importance, I thought, of this amendment is that it allows both new mothers and new fathers who are in parliament to have care of their infant. That helps break down those rigid stereotypes that say it is up to the woman to stay home and look after the children. It is those kinds of outdated notions that we need to challenge. We need to make our workplaces more flexible, allow fathers to have that wonderful bonding time with their children as well, which will enable women to do more in the workplace as we share those tasks at home more equally.

This is a really pleasing development. I thank everyone involved. I want to acknowledge that the House still has better rules than we do. Hopefully, over time we can revisit this and make sure that senators are not disadvantaged in comparison with members of parliament. But whilst we are setting an example here for other workplaces, clearly we need family friendly and flexible workplace arrangements for all workplaces, not just for parliaments. If we are truly to have gender equality and truly to address the gender pay gap, we need to make sure that all workplaces have flexible working arrangements available to parents, be they men or women, and we need to make sure that we have affordable and accessible child care, something that we sadly still do not have in this country. We need to make sure that the gender pay gap is eliminated. There is no need for a gender pay gap. And we need to make sure that there is a better distribution of unpaid work between men and women.

I will finish by saying that this is an issue that is obviously very close to my heart. It is an issue that has arisen for the Greens before. I pay tribute to Senator Hanson-Young, who faced the brunt of the standing orders several years ago with her young daughter, who was brought into the chamber when the bells rang unexpectedly and there was no other childcare option. I understand that Senator Hanson-Young's daughter was sitting quietly and not distracting anyone, but because that was in breach of the standing orders—I think it was then senator Barnaby Joyce who took it upon himself to be the champion of the standing orders—it saw Cora being dragged out of the chamber. I am pleased to see that we can move on from that ridiculous situation and that we now have some standing orders which will allow fathers or mothers who are senators to bring their infants into the chamber briefly at the discretion of the President when clearly there is no better childcare alternative.

I will conclude my remarks by saying thank you to all involved. We still have a lot of work to do, but this is an important step in making our workplace more gender representative and in attracting more young women into parliament. We still have a lot to do in other workplaces and, indeed, in the representation of members in this place, as well.

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

I rise to briefly add my comments to the report of the Procedure Committee. I am the senator who has experienced the consequences of bringing an infant into the chamber. It was in 2008 that my young daughter, Cora, was here for a division on a Thursday afternoon, sitting quietly, until she was asked to be removed. Those of you who were here at the time would remember what a kerfuffle it caused. I tell the story often at dinner parties, and my daughter says: 'Stop, mum! Stop! One day I want to be able to go back into that chamber and feel welcomed.' I think that now we have changed these rules I might put her here in the advisers box the next time she is in Canberra and she can see that things do move on.

Cora is the symbol in my life of how this place needs to become more family friendly if we are to encourage more young women into politics. I acknowledge that these rules, as accepted by the Procedure Committee and therefore by this chamber, are very similar to the changes that were advocated for following the incident with my daughter by former senator Bob Brown. I thank him for his leadership on this issue. He was there for me on the day. He stood by me every step of the way throughout the debate. He proudly refers to that incident with Cora as 'the incident with the little stranger'. I think that a lot of respect and remembrance of his leadership, particularly of encouraging young women into this place and the consequences for families across the board, should be recognised as we pass this report here today. Thank you.

Question agreed to.