Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report on the inquiry into the provisions relating to disorder together with the minutes of those proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I am pleased to present the Standing Committee on Procedure's report on the provisions related to disorder in the House of Representatives.

This inquiry was sparked by conversations about the general order of the House and some concern regarding the increase in recent parliaments of the number of members ordered to withdraw for one hour for disorderly behaviour. The committee felt that it was timely to reflect on the adequacy of the current disorder provisions and to consider whether alternative or additional sanctions might be warranted.

Since Federation, the main sanction available to the chair to manage disorderly behaviour has been to 'name' a member, after which the member is suspended from service of the House for a period of time. In practice, however, this sanction is used very occasionally and only in cases of serious misconduct.

In 1994, on the recommendation of the former Procedure Committee, the House amended standing orders to enable the Speaker to direct a disorderly member to leave the chamber for one hour. This procedure, provided by standing order 94(a), has proven to be an effective way for the chair to remove a disorderly member on occasions when formal naming and suspension might be inappropriate, excessive or disruptive to the business of the House.

Since the adoption of this procedure there has been a decline in the number of members named and suspended in this place. There has also been, over time, a significant increase in the use of standing order 94(a), especially, I should note, during question time. In the current parliament, members have been directed to leave the chamber for one hour on over 260 occasions. On average, that's around three each sitting day. These figures suggest that while standing order 94(a) remains an effective mechanism for quickly removing a source of disorder, it is less effective as a deterrent for disorderly conduct.

Over the course of the inquiry, the committee sought to explore whether there might be other options for managing disorder in the House and canvassed a number of similar parliaments to this end. The committee also held a private roundtable to seek the views of members.

The committee found that while a number of alternative mechanisms exist elsewhere, the view of the members was that the current provisions, and an effective Speaker, sufficiently provide for the maintenance of order in the House. Members are concerned that the expansion of sanctions against disorderly behaviour could have serious and unintended consequences, such as impacting on the decisions of the House, or threatening the robust nature of debate in this place.

The committee feels that this area warrants continued monitoring, to ensure that the House stays informed about trends of disorderly behaviour and whether they may require alternative or additional sanctions in the future. However, at this stage, the committee feels there is neither the need, nor the desire, to change the provisions for managing disorder in the House of Representatives.

I thank the committee members for their frank and honest participation during the inquiry, as well as the interested members who either tendered submissions or participated in our private roundtable discussion.

I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context