Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that the statement by the member for Oxley was to be by leave. I apologise; that was my mistake. We'll just note that that statement was made by leave.