- Everyday respect in the Chamber (Recommendation 10)
- As part of the inquiry, the Committee reviewed how the standing orders could be changed to improve safety and respect and address exclusionary or discriminatory language and behaviour in the Chamber.
- The Committee considered the current standing orders and the sanctions available to the Speaker, examined the practice and procedure of other jurisdictions and the availability and relevance of training and guidance materials. It heard evidence from Members and parliamentary office holders, former Speakers, Presiding Officers of state parliaments, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and other academics and practitioners.
Language and behaviour
Standing orders relating to order and disorder
3.3The Constitution provides the authority for each House of the Parliament to make the rules and orders with respect to the order and conduct of business and proceedings. These are ultimately set out in the standing orders.
3.4The standing orders relating to disorder (standing orders 88 to 96) detail the behaviours that are considered disorderly and the actions available to the Speaker or occupant of the Chair to enforce order in the House.
3.5Standing order 88 prohibits Members from referring disrespectfully to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or a State Governor.
3.6Standing order 89 prohibits Members from using ‘offensive words’ against a Member of the Parliament, either House or a member of the judiciary.
3.7Standing order 90 states that all imputations of improper motives to a Member and personal reflection on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
3.8Under standing order 91, a Member’s conduct is considered disorderly if the Member has used ‘objectionable words’, which they have refused to withdraw, or been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly fashion.
Managing language and behaviour in the Chamber
3.9Standing order 60 states that order in the House shall be kept by the Speaker or the occupier of the Chair of the House at the time. Similarly, order in the Federation Chamber is kept by the Deputy Speaker or the occupant of the Chair of the Federation Chamber at the time (standing order 187).
3.10This responsibility was encapsulated in the submission from Hon Milton Dick MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives:
The Speaker has an important duty to apply the Standing Orders in the Chamber. It is also the Speaker’s duty to uphold the dignity of the House and ensure that Members treat each other with respect and courtesy, while engaging in healthy, democratic debate.
3.11Standing order 92 empowers the Speaker to intervene when a Member’s conduct is considered offensive or disorderly. This standing order also allows the Speaker to determine if a Member’s conduct is offensive or disorderly when it is brought to their attention by another Member. Earlier this year, the Speaker reminded Members of this process:
… I want to reiterate to all members: if you believe you have been spoken about in a way that is disrespectful or indeed if any member believes another member has been spoken about in a way that is disrespectful, the time to raise that issue is when it happens. At the discretion of the chair, action may be taken at the time when a comment is brought to the attention of the chair.
3.12Exactly what constitutes ‘offensive’, ‘objectionable’ and ‘unparliamentary’ language is not defined in the standing orders and is a matter for the Speaker to determine. In her submission, the Clerk of the House, Ms Claressa Surtees, noted:
It is the Speaker, or indeed the Member acting as Chair at the time objection is raised, who determines whether words used are offensive or disorderly. The Speaker’s judgement depends on the nature of the words, as well as their context. The Speaker may be guided by relevant precedents and rulings by former Speakers, such as those cited in House of Representatives Practice.
3.13The fact that the Speaker is able to take into account the nature and context of the words spoken in the Chamber allows for a degree of flexibility in their rulings. As the Clerk stated:
While it could be argued that the current absence of specific types of ‘offensive’ or ‘objectionable’ words in the standing orders is a concern, it does mean that the Speaker is not restricted if faced with unanticipated circumstances and can take context into account.
3.14This discretion was highlighted in the submission from the Speaker:
When ruling on matters such as the use of unparliamentary language and adverse reflections on Members, the Speaker uses the appropriate levels of discretion as provided for in the Standing Orders and draws on precedent and the rulings of predecessors.
3.15The Committee heard that, while the standing orders regarding offensive, objectionable and unparliamentary language have not changed for some time, Speakers have been able to make rulings based on changing standards of behaviour:
Speakers’ rulings over time have changed. In the same way that standards of dress have evolved since the first sitting of Australia’s Parliament, what constitutes acceptable language and behaviour has also evolved. For example, some inherently sexist language or behaviour may once have been somewhat tolerated but is no longer considered acceptable in contemporary Australia or in today’s Parliament. Similar comparisons can be made regarding actions that discriminate or are exclusionary based on race, disability, or sexual orientation.
3.16While the flexibility afforded to Speakers to reflect changing standards of behaviour in their rulings is necessary, the issue identified by the Commission—that the standing orders ‘do not adequately promote a safe and respectful environment’—was emphasised as an area of concern throughout the inquiry. As the Speaker stated, ‘this flexibility can also be a barrier in supporting the Speaker to rule on certain conduct or disorder’.
3.17Adjunct Professor Hon Dr Ken Coghill charged the Speaker with setting the standard of behaviour in the Chamber:
… the Speaker, or the President of the Senate in that case, should set the tone in the rulings which are made, and not necessarily wait for someone to take objection to words that are issued, but in fact to themselves set the standard by the ways in which they pull up members for language which is unacceptable.
3.18The former Speakers all agreed it is the responsibility of the Speaker to keep order in the Chamber. As Hon Peter Slipper remarked:
What we should be doing is recognising the fact that a lot of the responsibility for avoiding the issues, which have brought about this inquiry, is to recognise that the Speaker has ultimate authority in the House.
3.19While Mr Harry Jenkins agreed, he clarified that the support of the House for the Speaker’s rulings is a critical factor in a Speaker’s ability to manage disorder:
If a Speaker really, truly thinks that they will be given absolute support, there probably is more that can be done [to maintain order].
3.20Ms Anna Burke stated that Members’ understanding and adherence to the standing orders, as well as their respect for the decisions of the Speaker, are ‘vitally important… so that, if you actually tell them that it is unparliamentary language and they are to withdraw, they do withdraw, and you don’t end up in a debate about what it is that’s unparliamentary’.
Specifying certain words as offensive
3.21A core focus for the Committee during this inquiry was identifying potential changes to the standing orders that could help eliminate language, behaviour and practices that are sexist or otherwise exclusionary and discriminatory.
3.22As mentioned above, in Set the Standard, the Commission suggested the definition of ‘disorderly’ behaviour in the standing orders could be broadened to include acts of bullying and sexual harassment witnessed in the Chamber. The report suggested sexist and otherwise discriminatory or exclusionary language should be specified as offensive, objectionable and unparliamentary.
3.23During this inquiry, the Committee received evidence in support of greater clarification to the standing order on offensive words. Standing order 89 states:
89Offensive words
A Member must not use offensive words against:
(a)either House of the Parliament or a Member of Parliament; or
(b)a member of the Judiciary.
3.24In her submission, Dr Sonia Palmieri advised that amending the standing orders to specify that sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary language is offensive or unparliamentary would ‘allow both Members and the Speaker (including members of the Speaker’s Panel) to call immediate attention to the use of these forms of unparliamentary language’. Dr Palmieri suggested that examples of unparliamentary language under a revised standing order could ‘include derogatory or discriminatory references to Members’ gender, sexuality, race, disability or age’. In her view, an explicit reference to sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary language in the standing orders would state ‘very clearly that we don’t accept that kind of language—that that kind of language not only sets an incredibly bad tone but also is no longer what the Australian community should be using’.
3.25Professor Michelle Tuckey, an expert in workplace bullying and organisational psychology, is of the view that the standing orders would be improved by ‘using language that’s more contemporary and more clearly points to core issues’.
3.26Ms Burke noted the challenge involved in identifying appropriate standards of language and behaviour in the standing orders without becoming overly prescriptive. She strongly advised not including a list of offensive terms in the standing orders. MrJenkins agreed, advising the Committee not to suggest a list of offensive terms, and commenting on such attempts in other Parliaments:
… it was fallacy, because then they’d always be adding [terms], or there’d be a debate on what’s not on the list.
3.27Mr Slipper acknowledged that the current rules against offensive language were likely ‘strong enough’ and would cover the types of language under consideration. However, to assist the Speaker, Mr Slipper was of the view that standing orders should be ‘strengthened to emphasise that sexist or otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory behaviour won’t be tolerated’.
3.28Noting that the standing orders do not refer specifically to language or behaviour that is sexist or otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory, the current Speaker recommended revisions to the standing orders ‘so that they explicitly include that this type of conduct is highly disorderly’. He believes that a change like this would be ‘advantageous to the Chair in ruling on such matters’.
A forum for debate
‘Robust debate’ and ‘political theatre’
3.29While there was a strong focus on the need for respectful and appropriate behaviour, evidence received by the Committee during this inquiry also stressed the need for robust debate in Parliament. The House of Representatives is a forum for the passionate contest of ideas, and this is essential for a healthy democracy. As the Speaker noted in his submission:
It is a challenge for the Speaker to uphold the values and expectations of contemporary Australia. This challenge is made more complex in a setting that has a long and entrenched history, is bound by rules and, by its very nature, is a meeting place of challenging ideas and robust debate.
3.30The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, acknowledged the need for robust debate when she met with the Committee:
… our report is at pains to recognise that the business of parliament involves opposing views, disagreements and robust debates, and, as we have in courts, we think that you can still be respectful and not discriminatory while engaging in the natural work of the parliament.
3.31Set the Standard highlighted a distinction between robust debate and unacceptable behaviour. It acknowledged that ‘[w]hile the parliamentary chambers are designed for robust debate, those spaces must also be safe and respectful’.
3.32Members of Parliament agreed with this view. Hon Keith Pitt MP, the Member for Hinkler, wrote that while the ‘ability to debate one’s point of view, and the point of view of one’s electorate, is essential for a parliamentarian’, ‘disrespectful behaviour does not need to play a part and should be addressed by the Speaker’.
3.33Set the Standard emphasised that the standard of language and behaviour in the Chamber affects the standard of language and behaviour in other parts of the Commonwealth parliamentary workplace. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner told the Committee her review heard evidence that:
… some of the behaviours in the chambers—and some use the word ‘masculinised’, which is very robust but aggressive and not respectful—did somehow create a sense that this could happen anywhere [in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces]. So, it’s not a completely isolated scenario. It’s not quite as carved off conceptually [as] we might think.
3.34This was similarly highlighted in the submission from Dr Palmieri, which called for cultural change through structural reforms and suggested the ‘norms and practices in the chamber … (inadvertently) seep out into other areas of the parliamentary workplace’.
3.35In her submission, Ms Kylea Tink MP, the Member for North Sydney, acknowledged that ‘lively debate and the contesting of ideas is an important function of any modern democracy’, but called on the Parliament to ‘move beyond the current “staged show” filled with jeering to what it was designed to be – a chamber for robust, respectful, debate and discussion’.
3.36The Committee previously examined the ‘theatrical’ nature of parliament and ‘robust debate’ as part of its inquiry into Question Time in the 46th Parliament. In her submission, Dr Palmieri noted that some of the behaviour described in the Committee’s Question Time report and Set the Standard can be ascribed to political theatre, including ‘various expressions of anger, (mock) hatred, or other confronting behaviour that is generally believed unacceptable in most other workplaces’. According to DrPalmieri, this ‘theatrical’ behaviour, which is generally seen as unacceptable in other workplaces, is tolerated in Parliament ‘because of an assumption that (all) Members can – and will – switch off their theatricality as soon as they leave the chamber’. Dr Palmieri wrote that, based on the evidence presented in Set the Standard, this assumption ‘may be fair in most cases, but not all’.
3.37Commenting on interjections during debates, Dr Coghill noted the language used ‘is very often an attempt to intimidate the member who’s speaking’. Ms Kate Jenkins highlighted the effect such debate tactics can have on potential candidates for public office:
… diverse candidates can look, they can see conduct and they can feel, ‘I do not want to put myself forward.’ And we did hear accounts of people saying, ‘I was fearful to go into that place. It did not look like a place that would be welcoming.’
3.38Former Speakers of the House of Representatives were critical of the theatrical aspects of many debates in Parliament. Mr Jenkins noted that such debating tactics may be more focused on media attention or political colleagues than on the wider community:
Sometimes it’s appalling theatre, bad theatre, but if it were theatre that had a purpose that was not directed at those that sit in a gallery behind the speaker, or to those that sit beside the person who is doing the acting, if it were actually theatre that were pitched towards the people of Australia, that would help. You could still have robustness, you could still have passion, but it’s to get the collective mindset.
3.39Mr Slipper was of the view that parliamentary debates will always have some aspect of theatre to them, but pointed out that this could be done in a way that did not offend, intimidate or harass anyone participating:
I believe it is possible to have colour, light and flair and for someone to shine, but it is important that the standing orders be applied fairly, firmly, consistently and constantly and that every member be treated exactly the same … You can have a parliament that is theatre as long as the theatre plays within the rules. If the rules are breached, then the person who breaches the rules goes out, and that adds to the theatre.
A note on parliamentary privilege
3.40Parliamentary privilege, including the privilege of freedom of speech, is considered essential for the proper operation of the Parliament. To allow Members to fulfil their legislative, scrutiny and representative roles, they are immune from prosecution or lawsuit for what they say during proceedings of Parliament.
3.41However, this privilege does not mean that Members are not accountable to the House itself for their statements and actions. House of Representative Practice notes it is incumbent upon Members not to abuse this privilege, and any statements should be within the rules and standards of the House.
3.42Mr Pitt’s submission highlighted the important balance that must be struck during debates. While observing that the maintenance of order requires the Speaker to ensure that appropriate language is used in the Chamber, he considered that this in no way should be used to take away a parliamentarian’s ability to speak their mind, especially under parliamentary privilege.
3.43Ms Burke suggested that guidance and training for Members could assist them to understand when the privilege of freedom of speech applies, and when it does not:
… you’ve got this great thing called parliamentary privilege, but don’t abuse it. You need to understand where the line is drawn. Maybe there needs to be some guidance around that, some education …
References to Members and directing remarks to the Speaker
3.44Standing order 64 states that Members should not be referred to by their name, but rather by their ministerial title, parliamentary office or the name of their electoral division. Standing order 65 requires Members to address their remarks to the Speaker.
3.45As House of Representatives Practice notes, the purpose of these rules is to make debate less personal and avoid the direct confrontation of Members addressing one another as ‘you’. Mr Jenkins emphasised the value of this, stating:
… the fact that the debate goes through the chair is so important. It’s there to de‑personalise the whole debate … to defuse the heat in the debate and to make sure, if you’re going to allow robust debate, that it’s not personalised; it’s about the issues. The strength and argy-bargy is not the problem if it’s all about the contest of ideas; it’s when it gets so personalised.
Practice and procedure in other parliaments
3.46The practices and procedures of the House of Representatives originate in the Westminster system of parliament, a tradition it shares with many other parliaments. However, while these parliaments may share a common heritage, each parliament’s practice and procedure has evolved differently. As part of this inquiry, the Committee reviewed the standing orders and practice of state and territory parliaments, as well as those of certain Commonwealth jurisdictions, to assess if any practices might be suitable for adoption. The Committee met with the Speakers of the Victorian and Queensland Legislative Assemblies to discuss the application of standing orders in their jurisdictions.
3.47While the United Kingdom House of Commons has no specific standing order on offensive or objectionable words, there is longstanding parliamentary practice about the use of unparliamentary language. Erskine May states that the Speaker will intervene when there is ‘abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder’ and provides three broad categories of expressions ‘which are regarded with particular seriousness, generally leading to prompt intervention from the Chair and often a requirement on the Member to withdraw the words’. These are:
- the imputation of false or unavowed motives
- the misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation, and
- charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.
- The other jurisdictions examined all have a standing order prohibiting the use of certain words during parliamentary debates. While not identical, the key terms in the various standing orders examined as part of this inquiry are highly similar:
- ‘objectionable words’ (Australian Senate, Western Australian Legislative Council)
- ‘offensive words’ (Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, New South Wales Legislative Council, Victorian Legislative Council, Western Australian Legislative Assembly, Western Australian Legislative Council, Canadian House of Commons)
- ‘offensive or disorderly words’ (New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, New Zealand House of Representatives)
- ‘offensive or unbecoming words’ (Queensland Legislative Assembly, South Australian House of Assembly, Tasmanian House of Assembly, Victorian Legislative Assembly)
- ‘objectionable or offensive words’ (South Australian Legislative Council)
- ‘disrespectful or offensive language’ (Canadian House of Commons)
- ‘personal, sharp or taxing speeches’ (Canadian Senate), and
- ‘personally insulting or offensive speeches’ (United Kingdom House of Lords).
- A table summarising the references to offensive or unparliamentary language in the standing orders of other jurisdictions is included at Appendix D.
Committee comments
3.50Robust debate is a fundamental tenet of parliamentary democracy. The Chamber should always be a forum for the frank exchange of ideas. The parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech is the most valuable and essential privilege, as it enables Members to acquit their role as representatives. However, robust debate does not include, and never has included, the use of offensive language or disorderly conduct, such as acts of bullying and sexual harassment. The Committee notes that this includes interjections to debate as well as other ‘side conversations’ in the Chamber. Interjections are regarded as disorderly, and ‘conversations, comments or other communications’ between Members which do not form part of a ‘proceeding of parliament’ may not be covered by the privilege of freedom of speech.
3.51Words that are sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory are unacceptable in Parliament. Such words meet the definition of offensive words under standing order 89 and should not be used about other Members during debates. Successive Speakers have made their views on this clear. For example, in the current Parliament, the Speaker has upheld three points of order relating specifically to words specifically identified as offensive, as well as further two points of order regarding reflections on Members. On each occasion, the Member withdrew the comment in question. On other occasions Members have withdrawn comments that were ruled simply to be ‘unparliamentary’. The Committee notes that, on three occasions, the Speaker also asked the Member to withdraw a comment that he himself had been unable to hear.
3.52On this basis, an argument could be made that no changes to the standing orders are needed, and that Speakers can continue to rule on offensive language based on the context in which it is used and community and parliamentary standards. Further, standing order 91 provides for the Speaker to determine that certain behaviour is disorderly. In addition, the Behaviour Standards and Codes for Parliamentarians, once adopted into the standing orders, will contain specific prohibitions against bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination in the Chamber. The Committee expects the codes will also inform Speakers’ ruling about disorderly conduct and unparliamentary behaviour.
3.53While acknowledging these arguments, the Committee agrees with evidence received during this inquiry that changing the standing orders to specify that sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise exclusionary language is offensive would further strengthen the Speaker’s ability to rule such language out of order, set expectations about the tone of parliamentary debate and also indicate to the community that these words are not acceptable in any environment.
3.54The Committee therefore recommends that standing order 89 be amended to state specifically that sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary language is regarded as offensive.
3.55The Committee recommends that standing order 89 be amended as follows:
89 Offensive words
A Member must not use offensive words, including words that are sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory, against:
(a) either House of the Parliament or a Member of the Parliament; or
(b) a member of the Judiciary.
Sanctions
3.56The Committee considered how unparliamentary language and behaviour could be managed and addressed through the use of sanctions.
3.57Standing orders 94 to 96 outline the sanctions available to the Speaker in dealing with disorderly conduct, including the use of offensive words. These range from a direction to leave the Chamber for one hour, to the ‘naming’ of a Member, which results in a motion for the suspension of that Member from the service of the House for a period of time.
3.58Usually, before sanctioning a Member, the Speaker will first call a Member to order or warn them, though there is no obligation for the Speaker to do so. Members who use unparliamentary language are most often requested to withdraw their remarks in the first instance, and sanctions might not proceed when the Member concerned withdrew their comments or apologised for their actions.
Direction to leave the Chamber
3.59Standing order 94(a) enables the Speaker to direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for a period of one hour. This grants the Speaker power to order the withdrawal of an offending Member when, in the Speaker’s opinion, naming the Member would be inappropriate, excessive or too disruptive to the business of the House.
3.60The direction to leave the Chamber is not open to debate or dissent. If a Member fails to leave immediately, or continues to behave in a disorderly manner, then they may be named.
3.61A standing order granting this kind of power to the Speaker was first recommended by the Procedure Committee in 1986 and has been in force since 1994. In 2017, the Committee reviewed the provisions related to disorder and considered whether the standing orders needed clarifying, expanding or supplementing to assist the Speaker to maintain order. Ultimately, the Committee suggested that changes to the standing orders were not required at that time.
Naming and suspension
3.62The naming of a Member under standing order 94(b) is, in effect, an appeal to the House to support the Chair in maintaining order. It usually occurs immediately after an offence has been committed, if possible. Once the Speaker has named a Member, a motion for the Member to be suspended from the service of the House may be moved and must be resolved without amendment, adjournment or debate. Ifthe motion is carried, the Member is suspended for:
- 24 hours on the first occasion
- three consecutive sittings following the day of suspension for the second occasion in the same calendar year, or
- seven consecutive sittings following the day of suspension for the third and subsequent occasions in the same calendar year.
- Previously, the Committee has emphasised the seriousness of naming a Member and that the process is time-consuming and itself disruptive. In its 1993 About time report, the Committee was of the view that order in the House would be better maintained if the Speaker had a faster, less consequential sanction. The Committee saw its proposed mechanism (which became standing order 94(a)) as a means of removing a source of disorder rather than as a punishment, enabling a situation to be defused quickly before it deteriorated, and without significant disruption to proceedings.
Proposal for an additional sanction under standing order 94(a)
3.64In A window on the House, the 2021 report on its inquiry into the practices and procedures relating to Question Time, the Committee recommended that standing order 94(a) be amended to enable the Speaker to direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for a period of either one or three hours (on an escalating basis) to be served during Question Time and the discussion of the matter of public importance. This recommendation was intended to assist the Speaker to manage order during Question Time by making available to them a penalty that was greater than a one‑hour withdrawal, but not as strong as ‘naming’ a Member under standing order 94(b). This recommendation was not accepted by the Government at the time.
3.65During the current inquiry, the Committee sought the views of participants on a similar proposal to expand standing order 94(a) to make available to the Speaker a greater time penalty to manage repeated, or more serious, instances of disorder that may not rise to the significance of ‘naming’.
3.66The Committee received evidence that the current one-hour penalty is an insufficient deterrent to poor behaviour. A one-hour penalty issued during Question Time on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays is unlikely to affect a Member’s ability to vote as it is likely to conclude during the discussion of the matter of public importance.
3.67According to the Speaker, this has led to situations where the direction to leave can be advantageous to a Member or be worn as a ‘badge of honour’. MrJenkins agreed that the one-hour penalty was not always regarded as a serious consequence, stating ‘some people just see this as being a star on their chest’. MsBurke spoke to the personal advantage Members may seek from being ordered to withdraw, commenting that one former Member had deliberately attempted to receive a one-hour suspension before the House adjourned on Thursdays, so that they could catch an earlier plane home.
3.68In his submission, the Speaker noted it would assist the Chair to have additional options to sanction a Member for disorderly conduct. While he did not recommend a specific approach, the Speaker suggested ‘increased penalties of time, and/or the introduction of cascading penalties … would be a disincentive to Members to be ejected’.
3.69Former Speakers agreed that an option of greater consequence than a one-hour withdrawal but not as significant as being ‘named’ would assist the Speaker to maintain order. Ms Burke thought a cascading penalty would be useful,and Mr Jenkins was of the opinion that some type of cascading penalty ‘has to happen’. Mr Slipper agreed, and suggested if the Speaker had the option of an increased sanction ‘members would be more inclined to be better behaved’.
3.70The fact that there are increasing penalties if a Member is sanctioned under standing order 94(b) was remarked on by Mr Jenkins, who noted the lack of escalating penalties for a direction to withdraw:
The irony is that if you get named and thrown out a second time it’s three days; you up the ante there, but for the one hour there’s no upping the ante.
3.71The Committee heard that an increased time penalty could result in greater regulation of an individual’s behaviour by the parties:
… a longer sin-bin period would inevitably encourage the whips to make sure that their members were better behaved, because, if there was a key bill coming up to be voted on in a few hours time, a member who was sin-binned for the period when that bill was before the chamber certainly wouldn’t be very popular.
3.72When the Sex Discrimination Commissioner was asked about her views, she said that a model where ‘you make [the sanctions] proportionate to the conduct, but you also look at prior conduct … and all other relevant factors’ is appropriate for Parliament, as it is for other employment contexts. She noted that in terms of acceptable standards of behaviour ‘what you reward and what you punish is what you get’, and stated:
I agree that it is important for the Speaker to have the appropriate tools to stop robust debate from becoming disorderly behaviour. A sliding scale of increasing severity would allow for the application of proportionate sanctions. Consistent and proportionate sanctions drive change in culture and practice and also provide a degree of deterrence.
3.73The standard of behaviour accepted in the Chamber was once again highlighted by Ms Jenkins as influencing standards of behaviour across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces:
… our report did really encourage looking at what those sanctions are across the board, and particularly for parliamentarians … That really was such an important part of what sets the culture—that once you say you can’t do anything about the parliamentarians who are in the most privileged or powerful position then it feeds right down to the idea that you can’t do anything about staffers, you can’t do anything right through.
3.74Professor Tuckey, Dr Moulds and Dr Coghill also agreed that a sanction of more than one hour would be a more suitable deterrent to poor behaviour, with Professor Tuckey stressing that ‘it needs to be more costly to use that kind of language’.
Practice and procedure in other parliaments
3.75The procedures for naming and suspending a Member are broadly similar in the other jurisdictions considered as part of this inquiry, with some variation in the period of suspension or the penalties applied.
3.76Presiding Officers in most of these jurisdictions have the ability to order a Member to withdraw from their respective Chamber (similar to standing order 94(a)). The period of time ranges between 30 minutes and up to 24 hours, with many requiring the Member to withdraw for the remainder of the sitting (until the Chamber stands adjourned). In some jurisdictions the period of withdrawal is at the discretion of the Chair (normally with an upper limit).
3.77Several jurisdictions allow Members who have been ordered to withdraw to re-enter the Chamber to vote in divisions or be counted for quorum.
3.78In the Victorian Legislative Assembly, if the House adjourns before the end of the suspension period, the member cannot return to the chamber on the next sitting day until the remainder of their suspension has been served. The Victorian Legislative Assembly also has a sessional order specifying that the suspension of a member during Question Time applies only to Question Time. Under this sessional order, if Question Time ends before the member’s period of suspension, they serve the remainder of their suspension during the next Question Time.
3.79The majority of parliaments researched include a power to suspend or adjourn proceedings as a result of grave disorder, or to have a Member or visitor removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms (or equivalent parliamentary officer).
3.80A table summarising the sanctions for disorder relating to withdrawal or suspension for the parliaments that were researched for the inquiry is included at Appendix E.
Committee comments
3.81While the Chair is responsible for the maintenance of order, all Members have a responsibility to set the standard for language and behaviour in the Chamber. Leaders and parliamentary office holders have additional responsibilities to manage behaviour in their parties, and all Members should help regulate the conduct of their colleagues. However, as evidenced by the Committee’s 2021 report into the practices and procedures related to Question Time, Set the Standard and this inquiry, the standard of behaviour in the Chamber has not always met the standard expected by the community.
3.82The Committee heard repeatedly that the current sanctions against disorder are not sufficient. The existing direction for a Member to withdraw from the Chamber for one hour is not always a strong enough deterrent, especially during Question Time when the Member is unlikely to miss an important vote before the withdrawal period has concluded. The Committee is concerned that the direction to withdraw for one hour has at times been seen as a ‘badge of honour’.
3.83An additional option to sanction a Member would allow the Speaker to address disorderly conduct swiftly and proportionally. The Committee agrees that prior conduct should be part of the Speaker’s considerations when determining the appropriate sanction, and comments from the current and former Speakers support this view. The context of the statement or action is also relevant, as is its gravity or seriousness.
3.84Therefore, the Committee recommends standing order 94 be amended to allow the Speaker to direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for a period of either one or three hours at the discretion of the Chair, increasing in severity for disorderly conduct that has continued or escalated. While A window on the House recommended this sanction be served only during Question Time and the matter of public importance, based on the evidence heard during this inquiry, the Committee considers it should have more general application and not be limited just to these times.
3.85The Committee recommends that the House amend standing order 94(a) as follows:
(a) The Speaker can direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for:
(i) one hour; or
(ii) three hours, where there is continued or escalating disorderly conduct.
The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent, and if the Member does not leave the Chamber immediately, the Speaker can name the Member under the following procedure.
Awareness, guidance materials and training
3.86Members’ awareness of parliamentary practice related to offensive language and disorderly conduct was raised with the Committee during this inquiry, and the provision of training and guidance materials was highlighted as an integral part of any attempt to improve standards of behaviour.
3.87Participants to the inquiry noted the importance of information-based mechanisms, such as training, policies and guidance materials, to improving standards of behaviour in workplaces. Professor Tuckey advised there is ‘good evidence that training can change awareness and can change recognition of behaviours when they happen’, but that training alone would likely not be sufficient ‘without a change in culture’.
Options for more focused training and information
3.88During the inquiry, the Committee heard about several areas where focused training and guidance materials could be provided to Members.
3.89The Clerk suggested that, in addition to the current information made available by the department, focused briefing material—including precedents of words and actions which have been found to be offensive, objectionable or unparliamentary in nature—could be provided to Members:
Such briefing could provide greater clarity as to the meaning and scope of the existing standing orders and have an educative effect in relation to respectful behaviour more generally.
This information is currently made available in list form in the Procedural Digest and The Table.
3.90In his submission, the Speaker stated that Members ‘may be unaware of the options available to them or feel they are ineffective in addressing their concerns’. The Speaker felt that educational opportunities focused on addressing grievances could benefit Members. This could include information on how Members can raise concerns about offensive language or disorderly conduct with the Speaker, and could assist Members ‘to better understand their expectations and opportunities when such matters arise’. The Speaker’s view is that this would lead to a more consistent application of procedural best practice.
3.91The Committee heard that, as in any workplace, the setting of clear expectations on standards of behaviour is crucial. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner spoke to the benefits of setting expectations as part of early training:
… set the tone upfront, and then, when you come to pull people up, you have something to reference back to … it’s got to make the role of the Speaker and the Speaker’s panel much easier.
3.92The Speaker suggested that the inclusion of guiding principles in the standing orders could assist in maintaining a respectful work environment. These guiding principles could ‘outline behavioural standards, the expectations of Members, and ways in which they can assist the Chair’.
3.93Mr Jenkins made a similar suggestion for guidance notes to be read alongside the standing orders:
… if there are things you don’t think you can put in the standing orders, why don’t you create guidance notes about what you really think should happen? They’re used for a lot of similar types of regulatory frameworks, and it might be appropriate for the future that we base our behaviour not only on precedent and the standing orders but on future expectations.
3.94The Accountability Roundtable proposed that a mobile phone application could be developed to provide continuing professional development to Members based on scenarios adapted from real-life examples. Dr Coghill suggested this could include ‘vignettes which explain the way in which particular behaviours are exemplary or unacceptable … taken from real life but perhaps not from the actual chamber itself’.
3.95Former Speakers commented on the role of committee chairs and deputy chairs. MrJenkins suggested that training for chairs and deputy chairs should include information on the standing orders on disorder. In his view, this would help ensure:
… that members treat each other with the respect that’s required and, in fact, that they treat the public with the respect that’s required, because that is the interface of parliament and the public.
3.96Ms Burke made a similar point, and noted that the standing orders relating to language and behaviour apply equally to Members’ work on parliamentary committees. Without education and awareness, there is a risk that committees may become ‘unworkable as opposed to being the bastion of parliament where bipartisan work happens’.
3.97Focused training and information sharing was also suggested for members of the Speaker’s panel. While context is an important factor for the Speaker to consider when determining if language or behaviour is disorderly, the consistency of decisions across all occupants of the Chair was raised during the inquiry. Dr Palmieri noted that at times this can be caused by unconscious bias, and suggested that the Speaker’s panel could consult with an expert to ‘help with what would be determined as sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary language’.
3.98According to Dr Palmieri, this could be an opportunity for the Speaker’s panel to:
… brainstorm amongst themselves as well, to figure out where they all stand and where they think the line is that they don’t think should be crossed, that would also be a really important innovation.
Designing guidance material
3.99The Committee heard about the benefit of ‘co-design principles’ for the development of such guidance material. In this context, co-design refers to a process that involves the people who are likely to be impacted by any changes to the standing orders on language and behaviour in the Chamber. Dr Sarah Moulds stated that ‘any opportunity for co-design principles to be employed in the generation of any materials that you’re using here would be really beneficial’.
3.100Dr Moulds noted that many organisations seeking to adhere to anti-discrimination obligations have adopted an approach of ‘nothing about us without us’. She highlighted the positive effect this kind of approach could have on Members of Parliament and on the public’s engagement with Parliament:
This thinking is really powerful, particularly for groups that might not always be in the majority of members of parliament, to consult those groups about language that they find safe and respectful, referring to, for example, their ethnic or Aboriginal origins or their gender identity. Maintaining review and flexibility of those things, ideally with some community engagement, can also help to create a space that broader members of the public want to participate in.
3.101Professor Tuckey advised part of the value of a co-design approach is that it helps to create ownership. She was of the view that the application of co-design principles to acceptable standards of language and behaviour in the Chamber should involve both Members and community voices.
3.102The Accountability Round Table recommended including community voices in reviews of the standing orders to help ensure community standards are better reflected. Dr Coghill suggested that this proposal for a ‘citizens’ assembly’ would be beneficial in any co-design process. He described the proposed citizens’ assembly as:
… a group of people who were demographically reflective of the general community who were given considerable time—in other words, a number of weeks rather than hours—in which to examine a particular proposal or a particular provision and advise the chamber whether or not that sort of behaviour or example should be repeated, should be disallowed or in what other way it should be changed to reflect a community standard.
Current training and guidance material
3.103In light of the evidence received, the Committee reviewed the training and guidance material currently available to Members. This includes:
- a three-day induction program for Members newly elected to Parliament
- publications including House of Representatives Practice, Guide to procedures and Information Sheets
- internal resources such as Members’ Notes, Speaker’s Panel Notes and short videos on parliamentary practice and procedure
- guides for chairs, deputy chairs and members of parliamentary committees, and
- procedural information sessions and ‘House Briefing’ seminars during sitting weeks.
Committee comments
3.104As outlined in this report, bullying or harassment in the Chamber is against the standing orders. Words intended to denigrate, humiliate or discriminate against another Member have been ruled as disorderly and have been ordered to be withdrawn.
3.105The importance of improving awareness of the standing orders and the required standards of behaviour and language in the Chamber is reflected in the following quote from Set the Standard:
… bullying or harassing is not against the Standing Orders. So we saw that example of [parliamentarian], where she was quietly being harassed and bullied on the sidelines, or even across the chamber, where you can be … really bullied and harassed in a verbal way, [a Member or Senator] can’t stand up and say to the [presiding officer] ‘Point of order, Senator [name]’, for example, ‘is being bullied. It is against standing order X’.
3.106The example from Set the Standard suggests that Members potentially may not be aware that, through standing order 92, not only can the Speaker intervene directly when they feel a Member’s conduct is offensive or disorderly, but Members are able to draw inappropriate conduct to the Speaker’s attention. The Speaker reminded Members that this option is available to them in March this year.
3.107The Committee expects Members to be aware of their obligations to behave respectfully and to not use offensive language against other Members or objectionable words in the Chamber. This includes language or behaviour that is sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory.
3.108The Committee notes the current guidance material and training provided by the department to Members contains information on disorderly conduct and etiquette in the Chamber. However, it acknowledges that Members may not be aware of these resources, particularly given the competing demands on their time.
3.109The Committee agrees that additional training focused on the words and actions which have been found to be offensive, objectionable or unparliamentary in nature would be beneficial. The Committee further agrees with the Speaker’s suggestion that greater awareness of the options available to Members to raise potential issues with the Chair would help reduce unacceptable language and behaviour and promote a culture of respect.
3.110The Committee takes this opportunity to remind all Members of the need to address remarks through the Chair, as it helps to maintain a respectful tone and orderly approach to debates.
3.111The Committee acknowledges the benefits that co-design can bring to the design of any future guidance material. The Department of the House of Representatives may wish to consider inviting Members and community representatives to take part in the development of any guidance notes or training on standards of language and behaviour in the Chamber.
3.112The Committee agrees that the inclusion of guiding principles in the standing orders relating to disorder could assist the Speaker in maintaining a respectful work environment. It expects that the Behaviour Standards and Codes for Parliamentarians (once adopted) will provide these guiding principles.
3.113The Committee notes the importance of regular meetings of the Speaker’s panel. This can be a useful forum for the Speaker and/or Deputy Speaker to set expectations for the management of debate and order in the Chamber, and for members of the panel to share experiences and discuss any issues that may arise.
3.114The Committee recognises that the recommendations in this report to amend the standing orders would affect the guidance materials and training provided by the Department of the House of Representatives. It is of the view that guidance materials and training should be reviewed and promoted to ensure Members are aware of the relevant standing orders, regardless of whether such changes are adopted by the House.
3.115The Committee recommends that the Department of the House of Representatives review the guidance material and training available to Members to ensure Members are aware:
- words that are sexist, racist, homophobic and otherwise exclusionary or discriminatory are considered offensive words under standing order 89,
- disorderly conduct under standing order 91 includes acts of bullying and sexual harassment in the Chamber, and
- under standing order 92(b), a Member may draw the Speaker’s attention to the conduct of a Member.
3.116The Committee recommends that the Speaker and the Department of the House of Representatives ensure guidance for members of the Speaker’s Panel, and for chairs and deputy chairs of parliamentary committees, is updated to reflect any changes to standing orders made from recommendations in this report.