http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/content/speech/debate-standing-order-respect-visitors-senate-floor

I’m not sure it was a publicity stunt. Seemed more like a sense of overweening entitlement at work - but live & learn.

Agreed on beating up pollies, but they seem congenitally unable to be gracious across party lines these days - watch how often they recite the same partisan fictions that everyone not in their particular party are all crooks & spivs & incompetents. When pollies talk along those lines it betrays an implicit assumption about the collective intelligence of the viewing audience - & it’s hard not to be insulted.

As I said, I don’t really care how rigorously that particular Standing Order is enforced - although I would love to see those who are most engaged in outraged chest-thumping about this incident give a commitment to consistently acting in line with the precise wording of every Standing Order in the future. The main issue is that it is enforced consistently.

As for Jacks’ smear that Senator Hanson-Young is a liar - that’s a very big call on the basis of zero evidence. I know having zero evidence matters little when people want to engage in such smears, but such a call would have slightly more credibility if some evidence was actually provided. Perhaps Noel Crichton-Brown meticulously followed the timing of every single Senate debate, and cleared all his activities for a ten minute either side of when a division might be called - even on the Coalition’s General Business on Thursday afternoons. If so, I congratulate him on admirable attention to detail and his commitment to showing up at every single Division, even when it was the cross-benches against the rest. But sadly, Noel Crichton-Brown was probably just one of a kind.

If it was a pre-meditated publicity stunt, you would have to also be alleging that the Senate President was in on the stunt. Given Senator Hanson-Young (and other Senators) had previously had their child in the chamber briefly without any complaint, how else could she have known that this time there would be an objection?

I know beating up on politicians is a national sport - although it’s always a bit unfortunate that politicians are often more likely than anyone else to lead the charge - but it’s about time people grew up and got real.

However, assuming that this holds up should a professional poll be conducted: just because the “vast majority” of the public has a particular position does not validate it as being ‘right’ (Tampa, anyone?). Many elements of Australian society are deeply misogynist, which explains why Crichton-Browne is criticising a woman for bringing her child on to the Senate floor, and not a former (male) Liberal Senator for doing the same. The level of misogynist, child-hating sentiment in the letters to the editor and comments threads is alarming and shows how far we still have to go in this country in terms of gender equality.

Just a silly bit of theatre really. Good article though - nice to hear from someone with knowledge of the process.

This being the case, it was totally understandable that Senator Hanson-Young believed there was no problem with bringing her child in with her during a Division, as it had not been a problem in the past.

I don’t really have a strong view either way about whether there should be some discretion for the President to take the context into account when determining whether a child should be allowed to remain in the chamber, or whether there should be a totally strict interpretation of the ‘no strangers’ rule. There are certainly other Standing Orders where convention now dictates that they either be completely ignored or only enforced when a behaviour or action gets too disruptive.

It wasn’t too long ago that mobile phones were supposed to be prohibited in the chamber. This eventually became widely ignored, particularly once laptops were allowed in and online access from within the chamber was possible. Now, accepted practice is basically that its OK as long as people put their phones on silent so as not to disrupt proceedings.

In any case, it is a matter for the Senate to determine what is and isn’t acceptable, and how it should be enforced. But a Senator should not be attacked - particularly with such viciousness - for doing nothing different to what has been done and accepted in the past a number of times over a number of years without complaint. If the rules are going to now be enforced more strictly, people should be notified in advance of that so they can adapt their behaviour accordingly.

We should get former Carlton players to tell us about how well Collingwood plays. Or former nuclear power company managers, to tell us about the merits of wind energy.

If a liberal senator had this happen to them, would this article even have been written? Of course not.

Other members of other parties have had occasion to take children into the chamber. And they have not been asked to take the child out. But this time… not so. The rules have not been consistently applied. So get off this young mother’s back and make the rules more clear. (And as that happens, allow for kids to be present in the chamber for short periods. It is not a chemical factory).

PS - some people have said “it does not happen in my workplace, so it should not happen in the Senate.” Or: “I could never take my kid to work in my day… so it should not be allowed today.” You know… there are two kinds of people in this world: those who are miserable when others can do stuff they missed out on; and those who are glad to see progress even if they missed out themselves. Let’s aim for progress.