Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the findings of the inquiry into the provisions relating to disorder by the Standing Committee on Procedure. I note the chair's comments and thank him and members of the committee, Ms Butler, Mr Gee, Mr Goodenough, Mr Irons and Ms Ryan. The committee resolved earlier this year, on 30 March, to identify, as we heard, whether the current provisions of the standing orders are adequate or appropriate to maintain the dignity and decorum of the House in which we serve, and also, importantly, to analyse any relevant examples of international or domestic parliaments that may have alternative mechanisms to those currently exercised under standing orders 88 to 96.

While this may not be front-page news, how we operate in this chamber does set the tone for the national debate and politics in Australia. The current two-tiered sanction system within the House of Representatives has been in operation, as we heard from the chair, for over two decades, with standing order 94(a) coming into enforcement in 1994 as recommended by the 1986 procedures committee. The principles embodied within the standing orders enable the Speaker to maintain order within the chamber with the implied discretion of the House that comes from the authority of the standing orders themselves. The relatively stable nature of the disorder provisions reflects the intention of the House to maintain order through the Speaker. However, the inclusion of the one-hour exclusion under standing order 94(a), which I have not received—touch wood—reflects the House's desire for a mechanism that could maintain order and minimise disruption without escalating to the more serious sanction of naming the member.

To expand the powers, as we heard, could potentially allow for more effective control of behaviour within the chamber or more flexibility in minimising disruption. However, it could also impinge on the ability of the House to legislate and vote effectively in circumstance where a member may be excluded under any new powers. So the question of whether the standing orders needed clarifying, expanding or supplementing was tested against similar Westminster style parliaments and with members directly. When the committee looked abroad to other Westminster style parliaments, we saw a variety of ways in which parliaments manage disorder. For example, the United Kingdom's House of Commons has diverged into multiple forms of tiered sanctions but still with the common naming for more serious offences.

Similarly, this House has set its own sanctions, and the current two-tiered sanction structure is as a result of that evolution. Having been 23 years now since the introduction of the current standing order 94(a) provision, statistics suggest that its use has either aided in removing the disorder that would have led to a naming or that speakers have potentially controlled disorderly behaviour in a more efficient manner. As we heard, with little support from current members to support a change, the committee recommended and suggested that the current provisions remain unchanged. This is something I support and I know the members of the committee support. I thank the members of the secretariat and once again place on record the work of the chair to make sure we have an effective report this parliament can deal with.

See this speech in context