The Standing Committee on Procedure resolved on 30 March 2017 to inquire into the provisions of the House of Representatives standing orders relating to disorder. This inquiry saw its genesis in discussions with the Speaker and other Members regarding the general order of the House and whether there was an appetite for revising or expanding the remit of the Chair to sanction Members for disorderly behaviour.
From Federation, the main sanction available to the Speaker (or the occupant of the Chair) to deal with disorderly behaviour has been to ‘name’ a Member, after which the Member is suspended from the service of the House for a length of time (the period of time has varied over the life of the Australian Parliament). This sanction is serious, both in execution and impact, however may have not been appropriate in instances where the disorderly behaviour was more of a distraction than a disruption.
Accordingly, in 1994 and on the recommendation of this Committee’s predecessor, the House adopted the procedure whereby the Speaker can direct a disorderly Member to leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). This has led to a considerable decline in the number of Members named and suspended. However, the increasing number of Members directed to leave the Chamber under standing order 94(a) suggests that while it remains an effective mechanism for removing a source of disorder, it may hold little value as a deterrent for disorderly conduct. On the other hand, Members do consider being named and suspended as a serious sanction.
The Committee was conscious of the influence of the Westminster tradition on the Australian Parliament and sought to explore the provisions used elsewhere for managing disorder. Accordingly, similar parliaments were canvassed to determine whether any of the alternative mechanisms used in those parliaments would be suitable or appropriate for use in the House of Representatives. Also, as has been this Committee’s practice in the past, a private roundtable was held for interested Members to discuss the inquiry and whether there was consensus, or otherwise, on a way forward.
The Committee found that standing order 94(a) has proven to be an effective way to quickly remove a disorderly Member. In cases of more serious disorderly conduct, the option of naming and suspending a Member is available and remains an appropriate sanction. Finally, in cases of grave disorder, the Speaker may suspend the sitting or adjourn the House.
At the end of the inquiry process, the Committee came to the conclusion that while alternative mechanisms do exist elsewhere, the overarching opinion of Members is that the current mechanisms sufficiently provide for the maintenance of order in the House. Additionally, any change to the current provisions may pose an unnecessary risk to robust debate and the outcome of decisions of the House.