Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee’s report entitled The display of articles—an examination of the practices of the House of Representatives, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

On 1 June 2009, the Speaker wrote to the Standing Committee on Procedure regarding the practice of members displaying articles in the House. His letter followed a sitting week in which the display of articles in the chamber, and the behaviour associated with the display of those articles, attracted considerable attention from the media and members of the public. It is fair to say that the attention did not reflect positively on the reputation of the House.

In his letter, the Speaker asked the committee to consider the practice of members displaying articles. The Speaker also referred to the larger picture and the way that technological developments have changed the way the public engages with the parliament. The committee agrees with the Speaker that there is a need for a larger inquiry into the way that parliament relates to, and with, its constituency. Such an inquiry might examine the potential for more effective communication between the parliament and the people that it represents, including elements that attract considerable attention because of those changes but also those aspects of parliament which do not engage the community in the way that they might if they were designed to operate in the contemporary technological framework.

The committee has inquiries currently underway and it is beyond the resources of the committee to undertake such a major inquiry at this time. However, the committee has responded to the Speaker’s letter by conducting an investigation into the practice of the House and the events of the week beginning 25 May 2009 and I am pleased to present its findings.

During debates in this House, members sometimes hold up articles to illustrate their speeches. From time to time, this appears to be perfectly appropriate and gives audiences—both inside the chamber and those following proceedings on television or online—a better understanding of the message being conveyed. For example, in the past, members speaking in this House have held up a bionic ear, a sample of superconducting ceramic and a silicon chip. These sorts of visual aids tend to enhance debate, promote understanding and tend not to disrupt proceedings. Similarly, a member may seek leave to include material such as graphs and tables in Hansard, and such materials have been incorporated in the past.

In contrast, on occasion, some members have displayed articles during their own speeches as well as during the contributions of colleagues in a way that is clearly not intended to promote understanding but appears to seek to make a political point, disrupt proceedings or attract attention. These ‘stunts’, including items such as life-sized cardboard cut-outs and a rubber chicken are more likely to disrupt proceedings and may also have a negative impact on the public’s perception of the parliament.

The Procedure Committee acknowledges that the distinction between a legitimate visual aid and a stunt is not always straightforward and that this can put the chair in an unenviable position. Although the tightening of standing orders might appear to be one way of giving members and the Speaker some additional certainty about the sort of articles that would or would not be appropriate, the Procedure Committee does not favour this approach for three reasons. Firstly, the committee would not like to pre-empt a mature debate about the use of visual materials in the context of changing technology. Secondly, in many cases, the events that generate the most negative coverage and bring the House into disrepute are clearly outside current standing orders and Speakers past and present have ruled accordingly. It is questionable whether one can stop mischievous rule-breaking by making a better rule. It is worth remembering that the onus is on members representing their electorates in the parliament of the nation to behave in a manner consistent with the spirit of this institution, their responsibilities as elected representatives and the explicit rules of the House. Thirdly, the acceptability of a member displaying a particular article depends so much on contextual factors and rigid rules might not be helpful. The occupant of the chair needs to have the flexibility to respond to different situations appropriately.

The committee therefore supports the occupant of the chair continuing to use his or her judgment in ruling whether particular articles are appropriate for display in any given circumstance. Of course, there is a need to ensure consistency in the approach taken by various occupants of the chair. House of Representatives Practice makes a significant contribution in this regard and rulings made by successive Speakers have established a sound basis for the ongoing practice of the House in relation to the display of articles. The Procedure committee therefore provides the following summary of the current practice of the House: (1) the display of articles to illustrate a speech is tolerated but not encouraged, (2) a member must have the call in order to display an article, (3) the article must not contravene the standing orders or contain unparliamentary language and (4) a member’s use of articles must not be excessive.

Turning to the events of the week beginning 25 May 2009, the Procedure Committee has considered the proceedings carefully and concludes that, although the events received considerable media attention and may have had a negative impact on the public’s perception of the House, the Speaker’s rulings were entirely consistent with the established practice of the House.

See this speech in context