Bernard Keane reports in today’s Crikey Daily Mail email edition on the eviction last night of a toddler from the Senate chamber:
Sarah Hanson-Young is to be commended for having her child with her in the chamber yesterday. It was for a division, not a debate, and her daughter was about to leave to return to Adelaide.
What do you think? Do you agree with Senator Sue Boyce:
Once again in the Senate last night we had a demonstration of the systemic anti-family attitudes embedded in our current parliamentary processes
Or do you side with Helen Razer?
Well, I don’t think that the primary care-givers of children should be parliamentarians.
Make a comment, join the fray, have your say.
55 Comments
Wow. A safe, middle-class PC opinion from Bernard Keane. It must be a weekday.
of course children should be innthe house and senate. they can learn all aspcts of childish behaviour and realise that childlike is better. Seriously, workplaces need to be as permeable as homes: we now are on call at home 24/7 so why not have children in the workplace?
eva cox
Parliament is an unfriendly place at the best of times, although I personally don’t have an issue with the presence (or absence) of children in the chamber, there are circumstances where this matter has been used as a political stunt. I am not saying this is the case here, but my state member in Victoria, Kirstie Marshall was barred from breast-feeding in state parliament and since that effort has done very little since.
People bringing their kids to work is always a shocker. They are politely ignored by the busy and conscientious and fawned over by the workshy and under-tasked. We can get as PC as we want about this but having babies around when you’re trying to get some work done is a world of pain.
It probably was a stunt but unclear why it was OK to have the kid in the chamber but not for the vote?
Storm in a bloody teacup.
Anybody has as much right as anybody else to be in parliament.
Have you listened to those infantile members screaming at each other? I should think the sound of genuine baby cries would be somewhat soothing.
Oh dear, who spiked Razer’s morning coffee with cliché?
It’s precisely because the institution is so critical that it should be accessible to primary care givers.
A great deal of the decisions Senators make will have an effect on the lives of those too young to choose their own representatives.
We should be doing all we can to ensure that those most connected with the next generation – that would be their primary care-givers, Helen – have the best possible chance to influence those decisions.
Its a little ridiculous… although i don’t think it was handled very well – i think the concept is wrong. There is nothing anti-family about it.
You wouldn’t take a 2 year old to a business meeting or a board meeting – i don’t see why the Parliament should be any different to that. – Its a place of law making at the very top of Australian democracy and society… i just don’t feel it should be treated as a casual “drop in with the kids” to vote.
… and there were plenty of options available to her… the attendants were right outside, i’m sure there wouldn’t have been any issue with leaving her there for a few minutes – also the fact that her staffer was there at the ready to take Kora from her outside the chamber indicates that she could have looked after her.
I see no problem with Mothers being Parlimentarians…. but children do not belong in the Senate chamber. It would never be acceptable for me to bring my child to work… so, if Senator Hanson-Young claims to represent the working public, she is missing the mark.
Helen Razer’s shock-jocular rant is as laborious as geriatric kung-fu. I felt sympathy for Helen, trying to work up a rage. Who cares if there’s a baby in the Senate sandpit? If it bawls, fair enough, chuck it out. If it smells, it’s in good company. There’s many an old National Party senator whose underpants had to be put down they were so whiffy…invariably justified by drought. Farm habits die hard.
I cant really tell from Razer’s argument if she is being facetious or not. If she is, she’s not very funny.
In any job the primary-care giver has to bring their child into work occasionally. Why should it be any different in parliament?
The reality is that in our society it is still women who take primary responsibilty for caring for children. In my opinion it is grossly sexist to argue that because they bring their child into work occasionally they are bad at their job, or a bad parent.
If Razer is serious, she is basically just implying that we should all go back to 1950s style employment where once a woman gets married she gets straight out of the workforce and into the kitchen – and stays there.
We should encourage parliamentarians to have lives – and responsiblities – outside of parliament and party politics because their life experiences will make them the better for it.
Disappointing Razer – perhaps you have had to deal with too many parents who can’t think of anything besides their kids but that doesn’t mean you should take your issues out on the rest of the women in Australia who have kids (or are planning to have kids) and high-powered time consuming jobs.
Obviously can’t have a child in the chamber if they make a noise or are running around. Perhaps a ‘virtual’ Sarah Hanson-Young could have been counted as being in the division even if she wasn’t in the room. Or perhaps the Parliament could work more sensible hours, if Parliamentarians work ridiculous hours then they see nothing wrong with normal workers putting in 70 hour weeks – usually for a sixth the pay and no perks or allowances.
Parliament legislates for “mum and dad investors” and “working families”, as both parties constantly remind us. Are we saying that these “working famillies” shouldn’t participate beyond the ballot box? Parliament should be made up of representatives from all walks, from breast-feeding mums to crusty old whingebags. And those that represent children. Children may not be voters, but they are citizens, and our future.
Hear hear Bernard Keane and Senator Boyce – glad to see there are some voices of reason and understanding in this firestorm of hatred.
As for Helen Razer’s disgusting piece of misogynist bile (one can only hope she’s being incredibly sarcastic): couldn’t Crikey have found someone who was capable of articulating the other side of the argument with some coherence and preferably without resorting to immature insults? Greens are hippies – HUR HUR HUR; I’ve never heard that one before!
It would also help if Razer actually bothered to check the facts before unleashing her vitriol. Cora (that’s right, she has a name!) was NOT crying at all until she was rushed to a staffer who then removed her from the chamber. Most of the articles written about the incident reported this, but clearly Razer didn’t see the point in reading any of them.
I’ve given a half hour talk on aphrodisiacs on Honk Kong radio with a two year old vomiting on my knees, and written books with the ‘hey, mum, I need to be a sheep for school tomorrow’ in the background. If Gareth Evens can legislate with half his mind on Cheryl Kernot’s butttocks, then a mother can do her double jobs too. Surely the Catholic Church has shown us one thing: that celibacy can lead to some weird scenarios- not just sexual celibacy, but cutting yourself off from all that is deeply human: family, friendship, kids…not necessarily your own. Do we want virtual celibates as our leaders? Grab the kid and change their nappy, Barnaby. It’d do you good.
When these same parliamentarians/senators vote to give us ordinary parents the “right” to have our children in all our workplaces then I won’t have a problem with it. Until then NO!
We pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year to sustain the circus called Federal Parliament. I don’t want to have to pay more to support the presence of their offspring as well.
As a family-guy, I can’t understand the mountains of hatred which one sees in reader feedback or talkback radio about this issue. The kid was in the chamber during a vote, not a debate. Thus its presence made no difference to what was going on at the time. All the Senator (and the then-subdued kid) needed to do was plant their butts in the right place. If you think having a kid with you has some detrimental effect on where you plant your butt, you must be a tool.
Didn’t notice a comment that pointed out how Razer’s heavy handed unfunny commentary highlights very well how much our society loathes and detests children, especially very young children. They aren’t even human, it seems ‘Apparently the thing was crying.’
Thing? Does any other class of persdon still get publicly spoken about in such derogatory and dehumanising terms?
Yep, there’s that and the perpetual linking of infants with excrement: ‘does not have the right to literally crap all over a critical institution’.
You know, if you step outside and look at our attitudes it’s fairly plain we are a pack of sickos, big time.
Ok Lets have all the children of every senator that has them, running riot in the senate chamber during debate , questions and estimates! Should make life interesting, then maybe the staffers could have their ankle biters in the senate as well. Lets just turn it into a creche and have a group hug to start the day!
At the risk of being labelled a child-hater who is unsupportive of working parents … I strongly believe that many parents are simply unaware of how inappropriate, disruptive and sometimes plain dangerous it is to bring a child into most work places.
Kids are, well, kids. They get bored. They get curious. Even when they are not poking the office scissors into the power point or running screaming up the hallway (two things I have seen in my working life), their parents are distracted because they can’t fully concentrate on both work and keeping an eye on their kids. Even when kids are not disrupting the whole floor with plaintive cries and tantrums, they are distracting the whole floor with half the staff having to come by and say “hi” and “how cute” and “how was kinder today?”
I have a colleague who works from home – but only on the days when she has childcare or relative available to look after her kids because she has discovered that it is impossible to concentrate properly on work even from home with a hyperactive demanding toddler wanting mummy’s attention RIGHT NOW.
If the politician brought her kid into the house to demonstrate the need for decent childcare in Canberra – I fully support her. If she thought it was appropriate – well honey, it isn’t.
This is not saying that the situation was handled in the best way BUT it does not change my view that the office is no place for kids. It’s not fair to expect young kids to play quietly and safely and its not fair on mummy and daddy’s co-workers when they don’t.
This is why I am a strong supporter of affordable, readily available quality childcare, decent maternity leave provisions and realistic part-time and flexible work.
Eva. Are you serious. I work in a power plant. For the plant workforce who are trained in the plant and it’s processes and who thus understand the dangers it is a very safe place. It is not safe for children. It is very dangerous. Just like roads are are until we train them to understand and avoid the risks.
Any facility for children in this employment situation would have to be off site and managed by someone. Does this mean that all such sites would have to provide a child care centre. What would be the point? My employer will give approval for children to be brought on site as part of an educational experience, but this is under full time supervision of the parent employed at the plant. To think that casual and routine access should be provided is impracticle and would serve no useful purpose other than as a symbolic comment that looking after children is as important than making electricity. Which of course we all know is nonsense. Looking after children is far more important and should not be mixed up with trivial tasks in innapropriate situations.
How can someone (woman, man, whatever) consider a debate and vote on an issue when they are also caring for their child? Why was the child at work with her parent? I don’t care that it was a female senator – though of course, the caregivers are generally women. Regardless of the sex of the parent. I don’t understand why someone assumes they can bring their child to work with them and expect it to make no difference.
Occasionally colleagues bring their children to work. They go off to meetings, leaving said children to be minded by their colleagues. They, and their colleagues, are distracted. I think this is inappropriate. Get childcare, or work from home, if you can’t get anyone to care for the child. Better still, why have children if you don’t actually want to care for them?
I don’t understand the self-righteous indignation of people who seem to think that just because they have reproduced, whatever they want, think, demand, is their right.
I think what upset the child in this case was the behaviour of the Senator/parent, and Senator Brown – the humming and hawing about whether to go or stay.
Alternatively, I’m with Robyn. Let’s turn Parliament into a full-time creche. Let’s turn all workplaces into full-time creches. We’ll all bring our children, elderly parents, cats, dogs, budgies, ferrets, in to the workplace. Anything goes! Including productivity, boundaries, and propriety.
PS – to Catherine Scott – I don’t loathe children. I loathe their smug, careless, self-righteous, arrogant parents.
I tutored a high school boy in history and noticed one afternoon after he left that I had a breastfeeding posset (ie milk vomit) on my shoulder. Not ideal but parenting doesn’t always work to plan. Sometimes kids have to be with their parents and if others are not understanding about this then that shows their lack of empathy and interest in the collective enterprise of raising the next generation. I would rather see parliamentarians who are parents with all the hassle that goes with that sometimes. This woman might actually represent folk like me in the electorate. Barnaby Joyce sure doesn’t. He and Helen Razor make a very odd couple on this issue. So much for Helen not being afraid to use the eight letter ‘f’ word. I can think of one (a plural noun) to describe the two of them.
You wouldn’t have a child with you while working in a coal mine, operating on a patient or laying asphalt on a road. The senate is no different. Having a child at work is inappropriate. People shouldn’t have to be reminded about it.
The really important issues are:
1. Why did the Senator consider herself “humiliated”? Distressed, even distraught, on behalf of her crying child? Yes, of course. But “humiliated”? Why? Whose welfare is/was at stake here? It does not auger well for the ongoing mother/child relationship. Think of the exponential opportunities for parental “humiliation” summarized in the concept “adolescence”.
2. Why did so many Crikey readers misinterpret Razer’s intent. it was heavy handed and not especially elegant, but the irony was obvious. Surely?
My God Sydney ABC radio was soooo very ignorant about this incident thanks to leading and bias of Deborah Cameron, and pathetic catch up on the ‘media event’ to borrow from Senator Joyce.
This issue is all about whether the Speaker has a discretion or strict mandatory obligation to eject. Secondly whether the discretion was exercised ‘appropriately’.
Cameron was appalling this morning for failing to detect the the Speaker felt he had no discretion hence the eviction. Also appalling that she joined with Prue Goward in censorious undermining of a MORE successful younger professional woman.
Both nasty in their patronising attitude that Hanson-Young didn’t already know and have totally in control her 2 year old, in a mechanic division vote context where it was counting numbers and walking to seats and nothing to do with debate or analysis.
A feminist said there is a special place in hell for professional women who undermine other women and that’s what we got at 8.30am this morning. Cameron wrongly compared the a crying child with a quiet well behaved child who no doubt has been groomed in any number of meeting scenarios of young mother Senator Hanson Young.
It was the already admitted ham fisted symbol of patriachy that caused the child to catawaul. Bull in China shop stuff.
What we got on Sydney ABC public square, with honourable exception of post 7am interview between O’Loughlin and colleague senator Brown, was grotesque beat up.
I won’t forget for a while Cameron using that totally loaded descriptor – the Speaker told the Senator the child’s presence was ‘inappropriate’. Actually the Speaker didn’t. He said the child would HAVE TO go out. In other words rules were mandatory. Not inappropriate as regards discretion.
But what most galls me is that blatant pandering on my and everyones ABC to the major parties most scolded at all the flattering and impactful press coverage in the major city of the country. Page 3 pic of angelic kid in SDT, and similar in SMH. I for one didn’t know she was a parent of a 2 year old. Right or wrong The Greens vote just jumped greatly in the suburbs for being a regular type of woman instead of being seen as weirdos as often positioned by the jealous major parties and their groupies.
Cameron in particular makes great play of her Party Liners ignoring the 40% of the public who don’t vote Coalition or Labor. That’s not fair. And that’s not our democracy. When is the ABC going to fix their anti minor party bias in their regular scheduling of the Sydney Breakfast show in terms of guests and free Big Party publicity?
Pathetic effort I thought.
…. and yes I now Cameron had Ian Cohen MP on about container recycling after 10 am or so comparing NSW to South Australia.
But it was the exception that proved the rule really. And even then the analysis was mostly shallow – the reason South Australia has aluminium can etc recycling and we don’t is because NSW doesn’t have the environmental collective guilt of the world’s biggest uranium mine at Roxby Downs. Down there they salve their conscience with green policy trimmings at the margins on CDL.
And I know a bit about CDL having run a recyling cage for the stuff for a good 5 years at Bondi Beach … until Waverley Council closed it down – said it didn’t look good in the tourism precinct. My colleague in that recycling project, bus driver Steve Raguckas …. he’s from Adelaide, a crow eater God Bless him.
What a ridiculous situation. Sorry Sarah, but youre not the victim here, but everyone is who voted for you and is privy to decisions you make in parliament. If you can’t get your act together and be organised enough to have someone look after your child for 5 minutes while you take a vote, look for another career. It doesn’t matter if she’s just about to go back to Adelaide, thats not an excuse for poor time management. You should have got up in the morning 5 minutes earlier if you wanted to spend the extra time with her. We have enough clearly disorganised politicians around without adding to it with idiots who can’t understand why they are being told to act professionally.
Some people sacrifice work in order to stay home and care for their child. If that would make you feel better, do that. But you can’t run for parliament, get elected and then complain about the rules when you get there. Surely you knew what was expected from you before you knocked on your first meet-and-greet neighbourhood door.
Raise your game.
There are enough children in the Senate already; we don’t want any more!
From Mr X to FFFFFamily FFFFirst to the gaggle of Greens the place has become more of a nightmare than even the Hon Don Chip himself could dreamt up.
People who make the rules, should not break the rules.
Simple really, no ’strangers’ in the chamber……O KAY!
PS, I also look forward to Kevin Rudd’s comment on this. Hopefully we will get one from him while he his expressing his views on Madonna adopting her latest child from Malowi and discussing the finer points of this week’s episode of desperate housewives.
p.s. Collective noun to describe Razor and Joyce: ‘foghorns’, loud and disturbing! Honi soit…
To set a precedent by allowing children on to the floor of the Senate or House of Reps is an invitation to chaos. Just imagine what it would be like. If every MP or Senator brought one or more of his/her kids into the chamber it would be worse than Question Time. All the time.
I heard some of the radio commentary this morning likening bringing a child into parliament as being similar to bringing a child in to a board meeting. One of the boards I sit on has enjoyed the presence of a dog on numerous occasions and while no-one’s tried bringing in a child I don’t imagine anyone would object. I certainly wouldn’t. I’m in the crazy music industry, by the way. We’re still professional and the meeting gets done as it usually would. And I’m not suggesting a child is a dog.
They are paid to concentrate on running the country. If you can’t handle the heat in the kitchen…….
There IS a child care centre at the Parliament so that could have been used. I’m okay with Sarah bringing her child into her office, and that is not so unusual around the traps. But there are some places where you should preserve the gravitas. We wouldn’t expect a silk to argue a case at the bench with a kid on the hip for example. Still I am all for family friendly workplaces.
An extraodinary situation drawing over-reaction.
What’s all the fuss? The parliament is full of big babies, who behave a lot worse and don’t make as much sense as the little’un.
p.p.s. Meant to write ‘plural’ not ‘collective’ noun earlier (distracted by kids). Imagine! A rabble of Razers or a boring bunch of Barnabies. No, these individuals are unique. Clearly, I have no business voicing an opinion while caring for kids. Ruinous potential for muddle. Shall log off and return to 1950s. It’s time for bed, little mouse, little mouse… Darkness is falling all over the House.
I coulden’t agree more with Helen.
People seem to take this as “If you don’t agree your anti children” Or you don’t understand the difficulties of a parent.
A judge can’t take their child to work, neither can most solicitors, a doctor usually can’t and neither can most workplaces.
In fact in many workplaces bringing chlidren would be on the whole just impractical and unproductive.
Thats why they invented daycare..and if i am not mistaken i am sure that parliment has its own daycare centre…so this crapola dosen’t happen.
Its just a pathetic stunt…. and I am a greens voter…pfft.
Every workplace is different – in some contexts children are appropriate briefly, in some they are fine for more extended periods, in some it is clearly inappropriate.
But if it was so disgracefully inappropriate for a young child to be kept in its mother’s arms during a Senate vote this time, why has it never been inappropriate before? It has happened before quite a number of times, including by this same Senator. If some of those now thundering that this latest episode was a stunt seriously believe that, why have they never raised their concern with the President before (or if they were really brave – let alone polite – with the Senator concerned)?
Given Senator Hanson-Young had done the same thing in the past with no objection – indeed she almost certainly would have got some fawning and cooing from other Senators over the presence of a baby (given most people enjoy seeing babies, especially if it’s only breifly) – she would have no reason to expect it had suddenly become off-limits.
I well rembember a Liberal Senator giving his final speech about 7 years ago with his young daughter – maybe about 5 or 6 at the time – jumping around on his seat throughout the more 20 minutes he spoke. I don’t remember any his colleagues thundering in the media at the time about it being a stunt.
Oh, Helen, Helen, Helen. Do you need a good cry and to catch up on some sleep? Do you really believe that women cannot be primary caregivers and Parliamentarians? Really (or were you just using sarcasm to generate a subversive response, which a friend of mine suggested and I would prefer to believe)? What would have happened if Sarah’s little girl (her name is Kora, not Sunburst Daisy Stereotype Kaleidoscope, or whatever moniker you shackled her with for the sake of squeezing a derisive chuckle) hadn’t been ejected from the chamber? Sarah would have voted and then nothing bad would have happened.
Any parent knows that there are some times that the unpredictable happens and last night, for Sarah, was clearly one of those times. She was working to be the best mum and the best Parliamentarian she could be and, without obstruction, would have suceeded admirably. It’s not as though she brings her child into the chamber with her for every sitting, because she is an intelligent woman with an active sense of the appropriate (as her track record will show).
And Tim, the daycare centre caters for 18 month olds and under, so Kora was too old to attend.
I worked at a great company which provided a room for mothers to bring their kids in if required. It was one of the things that attracted me to that workplace and since then I’ve been a strong advocate of parents and carers being supported at work, seeing this as the mark of a civil society.
The sort of society that doesn’t believe that a mother should be in confinement until her children are at school. I geniunely hope that’s not seen as too “Green” and left wing for our community as a whole or I despair for us all.
Now could everyone just back off Senator Hanson-Young and afford her the sort of respect due to someone juggling two of the most demanding roles possible? Yes, I believe everyone could.
I find this article a strange mixture of disturbing, illogical and heartless thoughts. Intellectual dragging of knuckles along the ground is never attractive – especially when the “dragee” is a woman.
Good to see a human touch in the lion’s den …
A reminder to Parliamentarians they will be held accountable by future generations
Ask yourself – what is Parliament about? It’s about the future for this generation anf the future for the generations to come as much as it may be hard to grasp for some it’s not about a room full of adults selected through democratic election. What was the options for this parent? – To leave the child with a total stranger or to keep the child with them – I’m sure this parent would have preferred not to have been forced to bring the child into such an aggressive environment where fully grown adults more often than not act like a caucus at the local mental asylum. The people that were wronged were the mother and the child in an environment that contains the officials responsible for being Australia’s official signatories to the treaties of the United Nations that express in depth that the union of the mother and child should be a paramount consideration. The gross disrespect for the decisions of the United Nations Councils of the past sits squarely at the feet of the fully grown stiff necked adults who took part in expelling the child to intentionally separate the grief stricken mother from her child, for what? – To make that meeting place quieter and more conducive to persons who are already well renowned for being selective deaf. Tisk tisk tisk.
I would not want my therapist to have their crying toddler in the room with us. Nor my GP nor lawyer if the matter was complex and requiring concentration. Nor an anaesthetist, structural engineer, judge, barrister etc etc etc. Including lawmaker. But for many other occupations it’s just fine. If you have a toddler, the chances are it will become bored and require attention and may signal as much by crying. Don’t bring the child to work if you can’t discharge your responsibilities under these circumstances. Male or female, it doesn’t make any difference.
This isn’t about the Senator or her kid. This is about the voters of South Australia who are entitled to expect their senator to give her undivided attention to her duties in the Senate whenever it is sitting. The aide who took the child out could just as easily have held her until the Senator completed her duties. The Senate is delicately balanced on most issues and we don’t need re-votes being demanded because some Senator was hunting for a dummy under her seat when she should have been paying attention to the matters at hand. This isn’t a feminist issue. It isn’t a parenting issue. It isn’t an employment issue. It is a duty-to-democracy issue for an elected representative.
Those who castigate this young woman for taking her child into the Senate, and the ‘precious’ environment of the Parliament blah blah are really amazing. There’s no credit to the young Senator, or her appreciation of what was happening at that time. The debate was over; the vote is a precedural matter, and the little cherub was perfectly behaved – until she was separated from her mum. Those like ‘msbhavn.mama’ above me obviously doesn’t listen to Question Time??My kids would’ve been sent to their room or outside if they behaved as badly as these so-called “representatives” do? I often feel embarrassed, and frequently turn them off! I’ve seen preferable behaviour from 2 yr olds.
People in dangerous jobs like policing, or in a power plant etc aren’t advocating bringing their children to work. They have common sense! I take issue with those who allowed the new parliament house to be built without child care facilities – day and night? They frequently sit until late or the wee hours of the following day. There’s no shortage of bars or eating places, a coffee lounge and a well equipped gym. It doesn’t take much to look at the ‘decision makers’ around during the discussion and tendering for the building project? Mostly men, and their wives/partners were safely ’stored’ at home looking after their children. This is 2009 – it’s time to get with modern thinking, re the needs and responsibilites of parents and of course, their children. I’m glad there’s young mothers in both Houses – if only they were there 20-40 yrs ago – my generation wouldn’t have had to wait this long for education and peoples’ needs to catch up with reality. We understand much better now, about the vital early years, for both children and their parents. What’s the point of having the knowledge of the 21st century, and insisting on maintaining the inhumane and dangerous practices of the past. I’d like to see the Federal Government introduce policies, where child minding facilities are to be part of any new workplace, particularly those with large numbers of employees, or big buildings, where the costs could be shared by many companies.
In the meantime, there should be a creche in Parliament House – get rid of one of the bars if space is a problem?
Good on you Sarah – I look forward to seeing your little one in the Senate again!
Oh it simply SCREAMS “stunt”
Question to Helen Razer: Does your definition of ‘primary care-givers’ extend to male parliamentarians as well? Or is there some kind of double-standard at play for women who are elected to our parliaments? To suggest that parliamentarians should not be the primary care-givers of children is absurd. A ‘primary care-giver’ need not be a stay at home parent. And if it is okay for fathers to be parliamentarians, why would it not be okay for mothers?
It is a sorry state of affairs when female politicians who choose not to have children are subjected to ridicule in the public arena (Julia Gillard anyone), and those who embrace motherhood within the institution of parliament are subjected to the same treatment.
To those supporting Barnaby Joyce’s accusations of this being a “stunt”: how do you explain the fact that Sarah Hanson-Young has brought Kora into divisions on several occasions in the past without incident? Shows how often Senator Joyce was in the chamber for a vote, doesn’t it? Never let the facts ruin a good story, eh?
I’m horrified at the levels of misogyny and child-hatred I’ve seen in comments threads in every single media outlet I’ve visited, and I’m starting to wonder how much of this is partisan as I can’t imagine so much hatred by so many people being directed at a Labor or Liberal MP for doing the same thing.
The greater concern for me is the lack of organisation of Ms Hanson-Young.
Children in the workplace is both humanising and awkward. Humanising to all, distracting to most, productivity-challenging to all.
Kids should be welcome on special occasions, and a vote in the senate is neither here nor there, but the expectations of Eva Cox and others that “workplaces need to be as permeable as homes: we now are on call at home 24/7 so why not have children in the workplace?” will just lead to homes becoming workplaces rather than workplaces becoming homes.
The separation between home and workplace needs to be guarded jealously, not because it harms the workplace, but because it destroys the home.
The idea that a parliamentarian, someone allegedly working 70 hour weeks, can be a ‘primary care-giver’ is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t matter whether you are male or female; mathematics and an apparent inability to transcend time means that you are not ‘primary’ at that point.
Justin-Paul:
So she’s done it a few times, sure, doesn’t mean anything.
The fact (as you request) remains that this has grabbed the media’s attention, which is exactly what was wanted, whether it was this time or the last is irrelevant.
Here here to Andrew Lewis – she cannot devote herself entirely to both roles.
Hurray for former Senator Andrew Bartlett, a voice of experience.
Peachlives:
How can it be a stunt if Senator Hanson-Young was not expecting Kora to be removed from the chamber? No one had taken issue with her bringing Kora in for the odd division in the past, so there was no reason for her to assume someone would take issue with it now. Where is the evidence that this was pre-mediated? If it was, then Senator Hogg must have been a willing participant as well. Are you suggesting this?
Here’s Senator Hanson-Young’s account of the situation, which I’d say is more reliable than Barnaby Joyce’s (one of the first to brand it a ’stunt’), who wasn’t in the chamber at the time of the incident (check Hansard if you like – 18 June, page 84).
http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/content/speech/debate-standing-order-respect-visitors-senate-floor