- Other potential changes to improve safety and respect
- As Set the Standard noted, safety, respect and non-discriminatory behaviour are not just governed by the formal rules of the House. The broader culture, including unwritten parliamentary conventions, also contribute to the tone and tenor of proceedings in the Chamber.
- Chapter 3 considered the standing orders related to offensive language and disorderly conduct, as well as Members’ awareness of these standing orders. This chapter discusses some of the unwritten parliamentary conventions, matters such as quorum requirements, and other potential changes to improve safety and respect.
Debating and scrutinising matters related to gender equality, diversity and social inclusion
5.3In her submission to this inquiry, Dr Sonia Palmieri noted that Set the Standard identified gender inequality as a key driver of unsafe and disrespectful parliamentary culture and behaviour. In her view intentional mechanisms are required to improve respect in the Chamber and she suggested two such mechanisms to support this goal:
- holding more regular debates related to gender equality, diversity and social inclusion, including a spotlight on initiatives in Members’ constituencies, and
- establishing a parliamentary group (or committee) on gender equality, diversity and social inclusion to discuss relevant issues, and share and learn from similar groups in other parliaments.
Regular debate on gender equality, diversity and inclusion
5.4Dr Palmieri argued that regular debates about gender equality, diversity and inclusion would provide a forum to promote the good work that is happening to advance these issues in Members’ electorates. In addition, they could provide an opportunity for Members to acknowledge issues and discuss potential solutions or approaches.
5.5When queried on the mechanism for such debates to occur, Dr Palmieri supported relatively frequent, short debates:
You could have half an hour. For example, one of the adjournment debates in the week could just be a GEDSI [gender equality, diversity and social inclusion] adjournment debate. So every member gets up to talk about GEDSI initiatives. It could be five minutes or three minutes. You want to get as many members as possible talking about what is happening in their communities. You could also just do it once in a sitting fortnight.
5.6The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, highlighted the importance of normalising discussions on gender, diversity and inclusion across the Parliament, stating that such discussions would ‘contribute to a more respectful and inclusive environment and there will be a deeper understanding of gender equality, diversity and inclusion across the board’.
Parliamentary group or committee on gender equality, diversity and inclusion
5.7In suggesting the establishment of a parliamentary group or committee on gender equality, diversity and social inclusion, Dr Palmieri noted that standing committees exist in many parliaments to ‘ensure that legislation does not unintentionally discriminate against women, men, boys, girls or people of different sexual identities or by race or ethnicity’.
5.8In addition to a potential forum for discussion on gender equality, diversity and inclusion, Dr Palmieri suggested such a committee could review legislation, ensure ‘the outputs of the parliament are not gender or racially discriminatory’ and consult ‘with communities on the potential gender impacts, foreseen or unforeseen’.
5.9Ms Kate Jenkins supported the establishment of such a committee, and described it as a ‘critical institutional mechanism to place gender equality, diversity, and inclusion at the heart of decision-making’. According to her, a committee focused on gender equality, diversity and inclusion would help to address a risk that legislation that is not intentionally and systemically analysed ‘may reinforce or exacerbate existing inequalities’. She was of the view that ‘[a]ll proposed bills would come to the committee for scrutiny on gender equality, diversity and inclusion impacts’.
5.10Ms Jenkins saw the role of such a committee as ‘scrutinising the work across the Australian Public Service from a gender, diversity and inclusion perspective’. Inresponse to a question on notice, she wrote:
Laws, policies, programmes and budgets that assume that ‘one-size-fits-all’ often result in discriminatory or ineffective outcomes. Parliaments have a key role in ensuring not only that everyone is properly represented in decision-making, but also that legislation and government actions take account of the needs, interests, and experiences of different groups.
5.11The Sex Discrimination Commissioner gave the example of the United Kingdom House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee, which was first appointed in 2015. The role of this committee is to examine the policy, administration and expenditure of relevant government agencies, and hold the government to account on cross-departmental work in relation to equality policy and law.
5.12In addition to the scrutiny of legislation, Ms Jenkins agreed with Dr Palmieri that another role for a new committee could be as a forum for discussion and learning, stating that:
By normalising these discussions across the Parliament, the committee will also contribute to a more respectful and inclusive environment and there will be a deeper understanding of gender equality, diversity and inclusion across the board.
Committee comments
5.13Members currently have the opportunity to speak to topics of their choosing on several occasions each sitting week. This includes:
- the adjournment debates
- Members’ statements
- the grievance debate, and
- private Members’ motions.
5.14It is open to Members to discuss matters of gender equality, diversity and inclusion if they wish. The Committee acknowledges that many of these opportunities are brief and, with the exception of private Members’ motions, do not encourage a full debate on a particular topic.
5.15The Committee agrees that more debate on gender equality, diversity and inclusion matters would be valuable. It accepts the evidence from Dr Palmieri and MsJenkins that the scrutiny of legislation and the work of the Australian Public Service from a gender, diversity and inclusion perspective would help ensure existing inequalities are not reinforced.
5.16The establishment of a committee focused on gender equality, diversity and inclusion would be a mechanism for such scrutiny, and the inquiries and reports of such a committee would provide a forum for debate on these matters. The Committee acknowledges the House may need to consider appropriate resourcing for a new standing committee.
5.17The Committee recommends that House consider establishing a House Standing Committee on Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion to:
- scrutinise the work of the Australian Public Service from a gender, diversity and inclusion perspective
- scrutinise the potential effects of proposed legislation on gender equality, diversity and inclusion, and
- inquire into and report on matters related to gender, diversity and inclusion.
Mandating diversity requirements
5.18As part of the recommendation to review the standing orders, Set the Standard suggested that there may be opportunities to provide ‘women, First Nations people, people from LGBTIQ+ communities, people of CALD backgrounds and people with a disability greater voice and visibility in the work of Parliament’.
5.19Set the Standard proposed two potential options. Firstly, the alternation of the call could include considerations of gender and other indicators of diversity. Secondly, quorum requirements in the House might also include diversity.
Alternation of the call
5.20The allocation of the call is a matter for the discretion of the Speaker, although it is usual, as a principle, for the Speaker to alternate the call across the House between government and non-government Members. The Clerk identified some instances where the standing orders provide an exception to this, and House of Representatives Practice notes other factors the Chair may take into account as a courtesy.
5.21In her submission to this inquiry, the Clerk of the House, Ms Claressa Surtees, noted that ‘every Member has an equal right to represent the interests of their constituents, including by making a contribution during the course of a debate’.
5.22The Clerk advised that, should gender and other indications of diversity form part of the Speaker’s determination when allocating the call, ‘consideration would need to be given to the practicalities of such arrangements—for example, how Members who were to be given priority would be identified’.
Quorum requirements
5.23Section 39 of the Constitution allows the Parliament to determine the quorum requirements for the House. The House of Representatives (Quorum) Act 1989 sets the quorum as ‘at least one-fifth of the whole number of the members of the House’.
5.24As the quorum requirement is set in legislation, any change to this requirement would require legislative change. In the Clerk’s view, it is ‘not clear how the legislation could be amended to mandate diversity’.
5.25The Clerk further advised that there may also be unintended consequences if quorum requirements are changed to include gender and other indications of diversity. These may include:
… adverse consequences for Members in the diversity categories if quorums are called for tactical reasons, or significant unforeseen consequences if a change in the composition of the House meant quorum requirements could no longer be met.
Committee comments
5.26The Committee recognises the importance of providing women, First Nations people, people from LGBTIQ+ communities, people of CALD backgrounds and people with a disability greater voice and visibility in the work of Parliament. However, as noted by the Clerk, every Member has an equal right to represent the interests of their constituents. Introducing additional factors to how the call is allocated may give greater voice and visibility to some Members, but could disadvantage others. It is also not clear to the Committee how the allocation of the call would be specified in the standing orders when there are competing diversity claims. The whips may wish to consider diversity when preparing informal speaking lists, but this is a matter outside the House and not within the remit of the Committee.
5.27Similarly, the Committee accepts the Clerk’s advice that there may be unintended adverse consequences if diversity were included in quorum requirements, and does not propose to recommend any change to the Act.
Gender-neutral language
Language in the standing orders
5.28Set the Standard noted that the standing orders ‘are considered “gender-neutral” (that is, have themselves no discriminatory effect on women, men or non-binary parliamentarians)’.
5.29As the Clerk of the House advised in her submission, this gender-neutral language dates back to 1994, when ‘standing orders were amended to incorporate references to Members in gender-inclusive pronouns’ and ‘to omit the term “chairman” and substitute the term “chair”’ in relation to parliamentary committees.
5.30Gender-neutral language is generally seen as a positive step towards inclusivity. However, Dr Palmieri noted that, while the change to gender-neutral language in the standing orders was in line with conventions of the time, this approach has come into question:
… apparently gender-neutral legislation has facilitated – rather than curbed – the ‘perpetuation of gender stereotypes and traditional practices’, and thereby gender discrimination.
5.31Other jurisdictions, such as the Australian Capital Territory, have taken action to update references in acts and regulations from ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, ‘him or her’ and ‘himself or herself’ in favour of ‘they’, ‘their’, ‘them’, ‘themself’ or the relevant noun.
Committee comments
5.32The Committee recognises the power of language to foster an accepting and inclusive Parliament and acknowledges that the language of the standing orders could be made more inclusive (particularly for people who do not use masculine or feminine pronouns) by replacing references to ‘he or she’ and ‘his or her’ with references to ‘they’, ‘their’ or ‘them’. It therefore recommends that the standing orders be updated to remove masculine and feminine pronouns, and replace them in favour of gender-neutral alternatives, such as ‘they’, ‘their’ or ‘them’ or the relevant noun.
5.33The Committee recommends that, during the next major review of the standing orders, the House consider removing masculine and feminine pronouns from the standing orders, and replacing them with gender-neutral alternatives.
Addressing the Chair
5.34During the inquiry, the Committee heard concerns about the form of address used for the Chair. Historically, ‘Mr’ or ‘Madam’ has been used before ‘Speaker’ or ‘Deputy Speaker’ when addressing the Chair. This is not a requirement of the standing orders, but rather is an unwritten convention.
5.35In the 47th Parliament, the Deputy Speaker, Ms Sharon Claydon MP, has requested Members refer to simply to her as ‘Deputy Speaker’, stating:
My title is Deputy Speaker. I don't need a Mr, a Mrs or a Madam; it's just Deputy Speaker.
5.36As a former Speaker, Ms Anna Burke supported this approach:
Speaker. That's the title. Why does it have to be gendered? There are really silly things that we just do because we do.
5.37There have been several instances this Parliament when Members have addressed the occupant of the Chair using the incorrect honorific for their gender. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner stated that, though unintentional, this ‘shows the unconscious and inbuilt bias’. She was supportive of efforts to bring this unconscious bias to the surface and to seek change:
… it doesn't help the reputation of the parliament for people in the community to see that [parliament] can't change around that sort of language.
Committee comments
5.38The form of address used by Members to the Speaker (or occupant of the Chair) is not prescribed in standing orders or House of Representatives Practice. Members should be guided by the occupant of the Chair and use the appropriate titles as a sign of respect.
Hon Shayne Neumann MP
Chair
31 July 2023