Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: 1998: Should breast-feeding in public be specifically made legal?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click here for a list of items relevant to this topic, from the Echo's Year 2003 file.
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2003/05: Breastfeeding in the workplace: should female MPs be able to breastfeed in Parliament?
What they said ...
'I would like to be able to provide for my baby as a mother ... without compromising my role as a parliamentarian'
Ms Kirstie Marshall, Victorian MP
'It is a chamber in which only MPs can debate legislation. That is important and that has always been the case'
Mr Steve Bracks, Victorian Premier
The issue at a glance
On February 26, 2003, newly elected Labor MP Kirstie Marshall was asked to leave the Legislative Assembly while breastfeeding her 11-day-old baby girl, Charlotte.
The Speaker, Ms Judy Maddigan, asked the sergeant-at-arms (an official responsible for the formal maintenance of good order in the House) to advise Ms Marshall that she would have to take her baby outside once Question Time began.
Ms Marshall, who was pregnant when she successfully campaigned for the seat of Forest Hill last year, had vowed to proceed with her parliamentary duties despite the birth of her child.
The child was removed under a standing order of Parliament that states that no MP may bring an unelected person into the House during sitting hours.
The eviction of the mother and child sparked immediate debate over the rights of breastfeeding mothers, especially when at work.
Background
The legal situation
The Equal Opportunity Act 1995 makes it illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their parental status.
In the area of employment, discrimination is defined as
a) denying or limiting access by the employee to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or to any other benefits connected with the employment;
(b) dismissing the employee or otherwise terminating his or her employment;
(c) denying the employee access to a guidance program, an apprenticeship training program or other occupational training or retraining program;
(d) subjecting the employee to any other detriment.
If it were judged that Ms Marshall had been discriminated against, it could be argued that in being removed from the House during question time she was being 'subject to detriment'.
The Equal Opportunity (Breastfeeding) Act 2000 amends the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 to specifically include breastfeeding in the list of attributes for which a person must not suffer discrimination. The expressed purpose of the Act is 'to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding.'
Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament
Mrs Marshall's 11-day-old daughter, Charlotte Louise, was forbidden from being in the chamber under Standing Order 30.
This rule states: 'Unless by order of the House, no Member of the House shall presume to bring any stranger into any part of the House appropriated to the Members of this House while the House, or a Committee of the whole House, is sitting.'
Various members of the Government have been quick to point out that Charlotte and her mother were not removed from the chamber because Ms Marshall was breastfeeding, but because Charlotte was not an elected Member of Parliament and so was classed as a 'stranger' who was not entitled to be in the House during sitting hours.
Internet information
The Equal Opportunity (Breastfeeding) Act 2000 can be found at http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/sb/2000_Act/A00696.html
This is an amendment to the Equal Opportunity Act 1995, adding breastfeeding to the list of attributes for which it is illegal to discriminate against a person.
The full text of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 can be found at http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/l2d/E/ACT00904/3_0.html
For the purposes of this discussion one of the most interesting sections of the Act is its description of what constitutes discrimination in the workplace. This is outlined in Part 3, subsections 14 and 15.
The policy of the Australian Breastfeeding Association on breastfeeding-friendly workplaces can be found at http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/mfwp.html
An outline of the benefits that the Association claims come from breastfeeding-friendly workplaces can be found at http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/mfwp.html#who
An account of the benefits that breastfeeding offers both mothers and babies can be found at http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/general.html
An account of the history and progress of the Equal Opportunity (Breastfeeding) Bill 2000 can be found at Breastfest 2000, a site promoting breastfeeding in public. Its address is http://members.tripod.com/~Cath_Fisher/breastfest2000
Some international comparisons are interesting.
Under Scottish law there is a code of practice in support of employees who are breastfeeding that requires employers to:
* Take positive and supportive attitudes to employees returning to work and breastfeeding.
* Make available a leaflet about breastfeeding for pregnant employees.
* Wherever possible, allow appropriate flexibility in working hours, including regular breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed or to express milk
* Wherever possible and as necessary, make available rest areas, storage space and a dedicated refrigerator, for the use of breastfeeding employees.
A full copy of this code and the arguments supporting its adoption can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc15/bfrw-01.asp
Included in the supporting arguments are some interesting statistics and additional information.
In 1995 50% of mothers in Scotland returned to work or were on maternity leave when their babies were 6-10 weeks old.
It is further noted that in France, a woman breastfeeding a baby under 12 months is allowed two 30 minute breaks per working day.
In Italy a new mother who works full-time is entitled to 2 daily rest periods of one hour each, and can take them together at the end of the day, to shorten her working day.
In Spain - working parents of a baby under 9 months old can take an extra hour-long break per day or 2 half hour breaks.
Arguments supporting female MPs being able to breastfeed in Parliament
1. Breastfeeding has health benefits for both mother and child.
The Australian Breastfeeding Association has outlined the health benefits breastfeeding offers children. These include that breastfed babies have the potential for a higher intelligence as breast milk contains the Omega-3 fatty acid DHA, important in brain development. Breast milk contains all the nutrients a baby needs for at least the first six months of life. The colostrum the baby receives in the first few days and later breast milk contains antibodies that will help increase its resistance to infection. Feeding infants breast milk for at least six months may help lessen allergy problems. Infants' eyesight, speech and jaw development are all enhanced by breastfeeding. Breastfeeding has also been shown to reduce the risk of SIDS. Breastfeeding may lower the risk of developing diabetes. It may also reduce the incidence of heart disease.
The Australian Breastfeeding Association has also outlined some of the benefits breastfeeding has for new mothers. These include that breastfeeding helps the mother's body return to its pre-pregnant state more quickly. Many women also find they lose excess weight when breastfeeding. Ongoing research is showing that breastfeeding may lessen the incidence of cancer of the breasts and ovaries, heart disease and osteoporosis in the mother.
Further there are obvious emotional and psychological benefits for mother and child. Bonding is facilitated and the infant is given a sense of comfort and security important for its psychological development.
2. Breastfeeding women should not be excluded from their place of employment
A large percentage of new mothers rejoin the work force. It has been argued that as breastfeeding substantially benefits both them and their children it would be discriminatory if their employment were restricted because they wished to breastfeed.
Ms Angela Savage, a policy analyst for the Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS) has stated, 'VCOSS believes that women are entitled to breastfeed in their place of employment.' Associate Professor Linda Hancock, a spokesperson for the Women's Electoral Lobby, has made a similar point. Professor Hancock has stated, 'Breastfeeding women should not be excluded from their jobs.'
The Equal Opportunity Act makes it illegal to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their parental status. An amendment to the Act passed in 2000 specifically made it illegal to discriminate on the basis that a woman was breastfeeding. The Equal Opportunity Commissioner, Dr Diane Sisely, has stated, 'Parliamentarians, like all employees, are entitled to carry out their work without undue interference ... If an employee is evicted from their place of work, or is prevented from performing certain essential duties, the action could be discriminatory and could breach the Equal Opportunity Act.'
Dr Sisely further noted, 'The question we ask employers is what arrangements they have made to accommodate the needs of breastfeeding employees, and are these arrangements adequate?'
3. Encouraging breastfeeding advantages employers
The Australian Breastfeeding Association has outlined a number of ways in which employers benefit by supporting breastfeeding in the workplace. The following is a edited version of the points made.
There is improved retention of female employees after maternity leave ensuring that the employer does not lose the skills and experience of the employee. Some mother return to work earlier. There is reduced absenteeism and staff turnover because of the improved health of the child. Employer-employee relations are improved and employees have a greater respect for and loyalty to their employer.
Many of these advantages could be seen to apply in the case of female parliamentarians wishing to breastfeed their children.
4. Governments and parliamentarians should act as role models
It has been argued that their high public profile and law-making function make it particularly appropriate that parliament and parliamentarians be seen to endorse breastfeeding as this sends a valuable message to the community at large.
Ms Lee King, the director of the Australian Breastfeeding Association, has made this point. Ms King has stated, 'Particularly in an area like parliament, this is the place where laws and trends can be set, policies can be made where breastfeeding is acceptable.'
Ms Angela Savage, a policy analyst for the Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS) has point out that the Government is promoting breastfeeding via its New Start program. Ms Savage has gone on to argue, 'VCOSS ... suggests it is highly appropriate for those associated with the Parliament to be seen to be actively and publicly role-modelling the behaviour the Government is encouraging of its constituents.'
5. Parliamentary regulations effectively prohibiting breastfeeding are outdated
Ms Karen Commisso, a spokesperson for the Australian Breastfeeding Association, has stated, 'It's just ludicrous. Get into the right century.'
ACTU president Sharon Burrow has claimed that the Kirstie Marshall incident was an example of workplaces designed for the 1800s and 1900s not providing the flexibility contemporary women needed.
The Victorian Speaker in the legislative assembly, Ms Judy Maddigan, has stated, 'There's no doubt that the parliament was set up at a time when it was never envisaged that the members would have babies in here, so it's not very baby-friendly.'
The implication of Ms Maddigan's comment is that the standing orders do not reflect current reality, that is, that there are now female members of parliament with infant children of breastfeeding age.
The standing orders prohibiting 'strangers' in the legislative assembly during sitting hours date from 1857. Ms Maddigan has ordered a review of the regulations that could result in an exception being made for breastfeeding members of parliament who wish to feed their children during sitting hours.
6. Barring breastfeeding children from the House is a misapplication of Standing Order 30
It has further been suggested that applying Standing Order 30 in the case of Kirstie Marshall's daughter, Charlotte, was inappropriate. The regulation prohibiting strangers in the House during sitting hours exists to protect the integrity of parliamentary debate and to safeguard our elected representatives from threat or danger as they act on our behalf.
Its application is discretionary, as the Standing Order specifically states that the House can make exceptions to allow 'strangers', unelected individuals or those who do not work within the parliament, into the chamber.
It has also been noted that both her party and her electorate were aware that Ms Marshall was pregnant at the time she stood for election. Naomi Parry has argued, in a letter published in The Age on February 28, 2003, that 'The argument that newborn Charlotte is a "stranger in the House" is specious. Ms Marshall's electors put their faith in her to represent them knowing she was pregnant, and she should not be forced to abandon her responsibilities to either electorate or baby ...'
7. Parliament is a particularly demanding workplace that makes caring for an infant difficult
It has been argued that the long sitting hours in Parliament make it particularly difficult for a female MP wishing to breastfeed her child. Hours that are very long and not flexible make it hard for women to nurture their children properly.
It has been claimed that under these circumstances it is appropriate that where necessary female MPs be able to breastfeed in the House.
Kirsty Marshall's husband, Dr Matt Acheson, has made this point. Dr Acheson has stated, 'It is not a normal workplace ... but being an abnormal workplace, if you are going to be in there for 20 hours you need to be able to ... be with your child, otherwise you would never see them.'
Arguments opposing female MPs being able to breastfeed in Parliament
1. Female parliamentarians should not receive privileges that are not available to other women
Senator Vanstone, the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, has made this point. Senator Vanstone has stated, 'Female parliamentarians can generally look after themselves and I can see no reason why they should get a better deal than anyone else.'
Further to this Senator Vanstone has stated, 'I want to see more family-friendly workplaces for all women but my main concerns are with helping everyday women with everyday jobs.'
John Ferguson, the Herald Sun state politics reporter, made a similar point in an opinion piece published on February 28. Mr Ferguson asks, 'To what extent should MPs be assisted when there is s state-wide crisis in childcare? Why should MPs have access to the sort of acre that others could only dream of?'
2. Breastfeeding infants could be disturbed or harmed by the Parliamentary environment
This point has been made by Opposition leader, Robert Doyle. Mr Doyle has stated, 'I remember my own children when they were younger; I'm not sure that I would want them breastfed during question time. It's not exactly the most relaxing and comfortable of circumstances.'
Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, has also made the same point. Senator Vanstone has stated, 'I feel sorry for the baby being fed in a noisy and testosterone-filled televised parliamentary debate.'
It has also been argued that informal decision-making meetings of politicians may be inappropriate places for breastfeeding mothers as they are often contaminated by cigarette smoke. Dr Geoffrey McCowage made this point in a letter published in The Australian on February 28, 2003. Dr McCowage states, 'the smoke-filled backrooms where the party machine determines how the politicians are to vote ... remain a hostile environment for young children.'
3. It would be difficult for a parliamentarian to perform her job effectively while breastfeeding a child
According to this line of argument, an employed woman has a basic responsibility to her employer - she must perform those tasks for which she is employed. It is claimed that it is not possible to both breastfeed an infant and meet the job demands of a parliamentarian.
Norbert Stampler made this point in a letter published in The Age on February 28, 2003. Mr Stampler asked, 'Can those outraged women's groups explain how a taxpayer-paid MP can do her job properly and breastfeed an 11 day old baby?'
Mr Stampler further stated, 'My wife had to give up work after our son was born because she was unable to do her work and acre for a baby at the same time. Parliamentarians should think about this before deciding to establish a family.'
Inga Walton made a similar point in a letter published in The Age on March 3, 2003. Ms Walton asked, 'Did the electorate of Forest Hill anticipate their member may occasionally have to forego her undertaking to represent them, in order to tend to her baby on demand?'
David Geoffrey made a related point in a letter published in The Herald Sun on February 28, 2003. Mr Geoffrey concludes, 'Being a mother is a full-time job and being a pollie is a full-time job and both baby and constituents will suffer.'
4. Alternate arrangements can be made to assist parliamentarians who wish to breastfeed
Ms Marshall was apparently unaware that a room had been set aside near the chamber as a feeding area for her daughter. It has been claimed that this is a more satisfactory arrangement for all concerned than to have the infant fed within the House during sitting hours. It is further intended to establish a crŠche within the parliament that could also be equipped with an infant feeding area.
It has also been suggested that Ms Marshall should generally be able to
In addition, it has been noted that other breastfeeding MPs have been able to accommodate their children without having to bring them into the House to be fed.
Anna Burke, the member for the Victorian seat of Chisholm, had an arrangement with the Whip if a division were called while she was breastfeeding her children. Ms Burke has noted, 'If I was feeding I would not come down.' A parliamentary 'pair' was arranged to ensure that the relative voting strength of both sides was not affected.
5. Parliamentary process could be disturbed by the feeding infant
It has been argued that breastfeeding infants might disturb the course of parliamentary. This could occur either because the child might cry or otherwise make a noise or because the very presence of the child could inhibit parliamentarians in the expression of their views. It has further been argued that the potential nuisance value of a child in the Parliament is likely to increase as the child grows older and that once an exception to allowing 'strangers' in the House has been made for breast feeding infants it will be very difficult to set an age limit on this provision.
Terry Murphy has made this point in a letter published in The Age on March 3, 2003. Mr Murphy stated, 'Where do we draw the line? If it is acceptable for Marshall to breastfeed her 11-day-old daughter in the house, when will it become unacceptable? If she is still breastfeeding Charlotte at two years old, will that be okay?'
6. Female parliamentarians are aware of the demands imposed by their chosen job
It has been argued that anyone going into parliament is aware of the difficulties of the job. Ms Marshall has stated in several interviews that she knew being a parliamentarian would be demanding. It ha also been noted that Ms Marshall knew of her pregnancy while still a candidate. She was, it is claimed, in a position to decide whether she wished to continue with her candidacy. There are those who argue that, having decided to go to election and having been returned, Ms Marshall is now in no position to complain about the difficulties of being both a new mother and a parliamentarian.
Some have stated that the only responsible action for her to have taken would have been to withdraw from the election when she knew she was pregnant. David Jeffrey, in a letter published in The Herald Sun on February 28, 2003, has stated, 'When she discovered that she was expecting a child, she ought to have withdrawn her nomination to be a politician.' The implication of this would appear to be that as Ms Marshall did not withdraw she must now deal with the consequences of her decision.
7. The dignity of parliamentary debate needs to be preserved
The Premier, Mr Steve Bracks, has made this point. Though supportive of Parliament as a whole becoming a more family friendly environment, Mr Bracks appeared to have reservations about the chamber of the Legislative Assembly being used as a place for breastfeeding infants.
Mr Bracks stated, 'The chamber itself is a bit different to the parliamentary precinct. It is a chamber in which only MPs can debate legislation. That is important and that has always been the case.'
Inga Walton also made this point, in a letter published in the Age on March 3, 2003. Ms Walton stated, 'State Parliament is a formal venue for debate and political discourse - not for furthering ... parental duties ...'
Further implications
Despite the nature of some of the media attention generated by Kirstie Marshall's dilemma, the core of this issue is not whether women should be able to breastfeed in public.
At the heart of this issue is the extent to which workplaces should accommodate breastfeeding employees. Under the Equal Opportunity (Breastfeeding) Act 2000 employers are specifically prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of their breastfeeding.
There appears to be some uncertainty in practice as to just what this means. Is an employer obliged to make a feeding area available for breastfeeding employees? Is it sufficient to allow breastfeeding employees facilities (such as an hygienic private area and a storage fridge) that will allow them to express their milk? Should they be given rest periods through the day or specific opportunities to either breastfeed their child or express their milk?
In working environments such as State parliament, which it has been argued, involve long and relatively inflexible hours, should women be able to breastfeed their children in the chamber? Are they being discriminated against if they are removed from key periods of the day, such as question time?
These will not be easy questions to answer. This appears to be an area where, from the point of view of the Victorian Government at least, good intentions have run ahead of practice.
The government began its new term by shortening sitting hours to make greater allowance for parliamentarians' family commitments. It declared its general objective to make parliament more 'family-friendly'. The presence of Ms Marshall in the House, a new high-profile MP who was known to have been pregnant during the run-up to the election, seemed to be a very visible symbol of this new outlook.
However, Ms Marshall's initiation into Parliament appears to have been very poorly handled. It is remarkable that she was not made aware that Standing Order 30 would prevent her bringing her child into the chamber. It is remarkable that she was not advised to make use of the feeding room that had apparently been set aside for her and her baby. It is regrettable that no formal decision had been properly taken as to whether Ms Marshall should be able to breastfeed in the House before this matter erupted into the public arena.
It seems reasonable that an exception to Standing Order 30 be made with regard to breastfeed infants. For those who are concerned that children of an advanced age would be brought into parliament under such a provision, there could be an upper age limit imposed. It could also be stipulated that any breastfeeding child would only be allowed to remain in the House so long as s/he did not disrupt proceedings.
Parliament, however, is an exceptional environment. It is the preserve of the relatively wealthy and well educated. It is an essentially safe, civilised and privileged environment where breastfeeding practices could be introduced which would not be possible or likely in the general workplace.
The policy of the Australian Breastfeeding Association seems to be much more modest. They appear to implicitly acknowledge that in most workplaces bringing along an infant to be feed would be neither acceptable nor practical. Instead they push for flexible working hours, rest breaks and the opportunity to express milk at work. It is interesting to note that such relatively moderate measures to support breastfeeding employees have no specific legislative backing. It seems there is a long way to go before the intent of the Equal Opportunity (Breastfeeding) Act 2000 becomes fact.
Ms Marshall's plight may be too atypical to be a test case for the issue. Despite its exceptional character, it will be interesting to note what the parliament decides with regard to baby Charlotte and Standing Order 30.
Sources
The Age
25/2/03 page 8 news item by Larissa Dubecki, 'Ski-jumping member takes up juggling'
27/2/03 page 1 news item by Darren Gray and Larissa Dubecki, 'Charlotte makes a meal of question time'
28/2/03 page 4 news item by D Gray, 'Breastfeeding debate bubbles on'
28/2/03 page 14 editorial, 'Baby should be no stranger in the House'
28/2/03 page 14 letter to the editor from Norbert Stamper, 'Derelection of duty'
1/3/03 page 3 news item by Darren Gray, 'Marshall defends mother's new job'
3/3/03 page 14 letter from Terry Murphy, 'A "motherhood" response'
3/3/03 page 14 letter from Inga Walton, 'Why the floor of Parliament is no place for infants'
3/3/03 page 14 letter from Angela Savage, policy analyst, VCOSS, 'Breast is best
The Australian
27/2/03 page 1 news item by Alison Crosweller, 'MP shown the door for breastfeeding stranger in the house'
28/2/03 page 2 news item by Stefanie Balogh and Alison Crosweller, 'Breastfeeding MP finds sisters in arms'
28/2/03 page 2 comment by Christine Jackman, 'Motherhood a juggling act'
28/2/03 page 10 editorial, 'Feeding time in parliament'
28/2/03 page 10 three letters under the heading, 'House safe, but not corridors of power'
The Herald Sun
27/2//03 page 1 news item by Tanya Giles, 'Baby ban'
27/2/03 page 4 news item by Susie O'Brien, 'Mums stand up for feeding in the House'
27/2/03 page 5 news item by Susie O'Brien, 'Experts slam House rules'
27/2/03 page 18 editorial, 'Stranger in the House'
28/2/03 page 1 news item by Tanya Giles, 'Mum on payroll'
28/2/03 page 4 news item by Susie O'Brien, 'House fails breast test'
28/2/03 page 18 four letters to the editor under the heading, 'A feed for some, a fuss for others'
28/2/03 page 20 comment by John Ferguson, 'A welcome stranger in the House'
1/3/03 page 5 news item by Tanya Giles and Vanessa Williams, 'Family ties revealed'
1/3/03 page 27 cartoon by Mark Knight
1/3/03 page 30 editorial, 'A family affair'
1/3/03 page 30 comment by Michael Harvey, 'Try a "pair" next time'