Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (13 March) . . Page.. 1002 ..

MRS CROSS

were created, women were neither eligible to stand for democratic office nor to vote to elect their representatives in parliament.

I am embarrassed that the member for Forest Hill had to endure the indignity of being humiliated-not only for being a woman, but also for being a mother. I am grateful, however, that her action shed some light on some antiquated practices that still exist in our parliaments.

It comes as no surprise to any of us here that politicians are held in disdain by a great number of people in the community. Chief amongst the reasons for that is that many voters witness so many double standards in public office. Nothing is more damaging to the reputation of a democratic institution like this Assembly than when we expect members of the wider community to live their lives by norms and standards that we ourselves are not prepared to live up to. In simple terms, it is called hypocrisy.

Section 7(1)(g) of the Discrimination Act 1991 makes it unlawful to discriminate against a woman who is breastfeeding. So it may, indeed, be a moot legal point whether a speaker's potential ruling against a mother breastfeeding would be in contravention of that act.

But do we ever want to envisage a situation where an MLA, now or in the future, sues the Assembly for relief because her right to breastfeed was impugned by a speaker's ruling? Clearly, a ruling such as there was in Victoria last month is ludicrous.

We have an obligation to put our house in order on this one. As you know, I and most people in this chamber usually strive to comply with the standing orders. Under your watchful eye, Mr Speaker, the forms and functions, precedents and conventions of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory are in good stead under your stewardship. But this is not about you or any other speaker; this is about a matter of principle. It is about the rights of a mother and her baby. But most of all, it is about how we politicians should be seen to be leading the community on these matters rather than betraying it with inconsistency and double standards.

In making my concluding remarks I am mindful that the usual convention for amendments to standing orders is for them to follow the pathway set out in standing order 16(1)(a)(ii), which provides for the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure to:

-the operative word for me here is "appropriate". The standing orders are here to support our democratic processes, but sometimes they can be used to stifle reform and progress.

I note with a certain amount of disdain that the opposition will be seeking to express its opposition to this motion of mine by ferreting it off to a committee. I will not stand for that. If ever there was a time when we should dispense with the formalities of the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .