11 December 2013

PDF version [794KB]

Rob Lundie
Politics and Public Administration

This paper was updated in 2017 – see ‘That's it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2016.

Executive summary

• Of the 1,093 members who have served in the House of Representatives from 1901 to the end of the 43rd Parliament in August 2013, 300 (27.4%) have been named and/or suspended or ‘sin binned’ for disorderly behaviour in the Chamber. This study outlines the bases of the House’s authority to deal with disorderly behaviour, and the procedures available to the Speaker to act on such behaviour. It then analyses the 1,352 instances of disorderly behaviour identified in the official Hansard record with a view to identifying patterns over time, and the extent and degree of such behaviour.  It does not attempt to identify the reasons why disorderly behaviour occurs as they are quite complex and beyond the scope of this paper.
• The authority for the rules of conduct in the House of Representatives is derived from the Australian Constitution. The members themselves have broad responsibility for their behaviour in the House. However, it is the role of the Speaker or the occupier of the Chair to ensure that order is maintained during parliamentary proceedings. This responsibility is derived from the standing orders. Since its introduction in 1994, the ‘sin bin’ has become the disciplinary action of choice for Speakers.
• With the number of namings and suspensions decreasing in recent years, the ‘sin bin’ (being ordered from the chamber for one hour) appears to have been successful in avoiding the disruption caused by the naming and suspension procedure. However, as the number of ‘sin bin’ sanctions has increased, it may be that this penalty has contributed to greater disorder because members may view it as little more than a slap on the wrist and of little deterrent value.
• Most disorderly behavior (90%) occurs during Question Time and in the parliamentary proceedings which often take place during or just after it. Such behaviour also tends to increase daily as the sitting week progresses.
• Front benchers and parliamentary office holders account for about 57% of instances of disorderly behaviour. Opposition members are sanctioned 90% of the time no matter which party occupies that role. No prime minister has been sanctioned for disorderly behaviour but two deputy prime ministers and seven opposition leaders have, although not all have been ordered from the House. Christopher Pyne leads the list of members most disciplined on 45 followed by Anthony Albanese on 34. Women members have accounted for 15% of disciplinary actions since they first entered Parliament in 1943.
• Members were disciplined most frequently under the Speakership of Peter Slipper followed by Anna Burke, David Hawker and Harry Jenkins.
• On four measures of disorderly behaviour (number of disciplinary actions, number of sitting weeks in which a member was disciplined, number of days when four or more members were disciplined, number of different members disciplined), the Rudd/Gillard Parliaments (42nd and 43rd, 2008–2013) were more disorderly than the Howard Parliaments (38th to 41st, 1996–2007). The most disorderly Parliament was the 43rd.
  

 

Contents

Executive summary

Introduction

Authority of the House and the Speaker to manage disorderly behaviour

The Constitution

Powers of the Speaker

Categories of Disorderly Conduct

Gross disorder by a member

Grave disorder in the House

Disorder in the Federation Chamber/Main Committee

Penalties for Disorderly Conduct

Matter not proceeded

Expulsion

Naming and Suspension

Suspension by resolution of the House
Directed to withdraw from the Chamber for one hour (‘Sin Bin’)

Effectiveness of the sanctions on disorderly behaviour in maintaining order

Periods spent out of the Chamber

Removal from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms

Reasons for disciplinary actions

Patterns of disciplinary action

When disorder most occurs

Disciplinary actions across the sitting fortnight

Who receives disciplinary action for disorderly behaviour

Number and list of members disciplined

Disciplinary actions by gender

Disciplinary actions against parties in Government and Opposition

Position/office of members disciplined

Disciplinary actions against members by each State and Territory

External factors which may affect disorderly behaviour

Televising of Parliament

Relocation of Parliament

Size of the House of Representatives

Role of the Speaker

Extent and degree of disorderly conduct

Disorderly conduct by Parliament

Frequency with which disciplinary actions were taken against members

Concentration of disorderly conduct

Most Disorderly Parliament

Appendix A: Standing Orders relating to the disciplining of Members of the House of Representatives

Appendix B: Removal from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms

Appendix C: Number (%) of disciplinary actions by weekday

Appendix D: Comparison of disciplinary actions taken in the first and second weeks of a sitting fortnight, 1990–2013

Appendix E: Members listed by the type and number of disciplinary actions taken against them

Appendix F: Proportion of disciplinary actions by state and territory compared to the proportion of seats

Appendix G: Disciplinary actions by Speakership

 

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Cathy Madden, Deirdre McKeown, Mary Anne Neilsen, Peter Fowler and Leo Terpstra for providing constructive and very useful feedback on this paper. Thanks also to Jessica Butler, Penny Branson, Peter Branson, Sharon Bryant, Catherine Cornish, Naomi Swann and Susan Dinon from the Chamber Research Office who were always willing to verify and clarify the information upon which this paper is based. Thanks to Maryanne Lawless for negotiating the intricacies involved in the presentation of this publication. A special thank you to Donald Giorgio for his patient and expert statistical advice which made the analysis of the data so much easier than it would otherwise have been.

Introduction

From 1901 to the end of the 43rd Parliament in August 2013, 300 different members and two senators have been disorderly enough during proceedings of the House of Representatives as to result in disciplinary action[1] by the Speaker.[2] This study outlines the bases of the House’s authority to deal with disorderly behaviour, and the procedures available to the Speaker to act on such behaviour. It then analyses the 1,352 instances of disorderly behaviour recorded in Hansard with a view to identifying patterns over time, the extent and degree of disorderly behaviour, and answering questions such as: which members have been disciplined and which parliament has been the most disorderly?[3] It does not analyse the reasons behind such behaviour as they are quite complex and beyond the scope of this paper. All tables have been compiled by the author.

Authority of the House and the Speaker to manage disorderly behaviour

The Constitution

The authority for the rules of conduct in the House of Representatives is derived from the Australian Constitution.  In 1901 section 49 of the Constitution gave the House of Representatives the powers, privileges and immunities as enjoyed by the United Kingdom House of Commons at the time.[4] Elements of these powers were codified by the enactment of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 and the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988. Section 50 of the Constitution gives Parliament the authority to make its own rules as to how its powers, privileges and immunities are to be exercised and upheld.[5] The rules are set down as the Standing Orders (SO).[6]

Powers of the Speaker

The members themselves have broad responsibility for their behaviour in the House. However, it is the role of the Speaker or the occupier of the Chair to ensure that order is maintained during parliamentary proceedings. This responsibility is derived specifically from SO 60 but also from other standing orders and the practice and traditions of the House. The standing orders relating to orderly conduct set down the sorts of behaviours that are considered disorderly, the actions which can be taken by the Speaker and the House to restore order, and the penalties which apply depending upon the nature of the transgression.

Until 1950 the Speaker only had the power to name a member and report the circumstances of the transgression to the House after which it voted on the motion: ‘That such member be suspended from the service of the House’.

In 1950 the standing orders were altered to give the Speaker the power to ‘order a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of the day’s sitting’ (SO 303). The Speaker was not required to name the member or put a motion for suspension before the House. This standing order was invoked on 26 occasions from 1950 to 1963 including once when the matter was not proceeded with. A similar power under SO 306 was incorporated in the standing orders when they were altered in August 1963, February 1994 and January 1998, and under SO 94(c) in November 2004. However, the power provided for under these standing orders has never been used since 1963.

From 1994 the Speaker was given the power (SO 94(a)) to direct a member to withdraw from the House for one hour (the ‘sin bin’). No motion or action is required by the House but if a member fails to leave the Chamber immediately or continues to behave in a disorderly manner they may be named and the House can then suspend them.

See Appendix A for a list of the main standing orders relating to the management of disorder in the House.

Categories of Disorderly Conduct

The sorts of behaviours considered disorderly have remained broadly the same as expressed in SO 91:

                A member’s conduct shall be considered disorderly if the member has:

(a)     persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;

(b)     used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to withdraw;

(c)     persistently and wilfully refused to conform to a standing order;

(d)     wilfully disobeyed an order of the House;

(e)     persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Speaker; or

(f)      been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly manner.

There  are also other offences which come under the general behaviours listed above which are considered disorderly such as being insolent towards the Speaker, imputing motives to the Speaker (e.g. suggesting the Speaker is biased), and calling for a quorum when one already exists.

A member’s behaviour may be judged disorderly (SO 91), grossly disorderly (SO 94(c)), gravely disorderly (SO 95) or wilfully disobeying an order of the House (SO 93) depending upon the nature of the behaviour, its persistence and the extent to which it disrupts the proceedings of the House or the Federation Chamber (formerly the Main Committee). Another factor taken into account by the Speaker is whether or not the member has been specifically warned by the Chair or through a general warning to all members. Warnings, although usually given by the Chair, are not required to be given. In fact some Speakers, e.g. Peter Slipper (IND, Fisher, Qld), have indicated that they intended not giving warnings.[7] Warnings may take the form of a call to order as in: ‘The member for … will cease interjecting’, an explicit form as in ‘I warn the member for …’ or less officially a ‘growl’ warning uttered in a low tone as in ‘The member for …’.

Gross disorder by a member[8]

If the Speaker determines that there is an urgent need to protect the dignity of the House, they can order a grossly disorderly member to leave the Chamber immediately (SO 94(c)). When the member has left, the Speaker must immediately name the member and put the question for suspension without a motion being necessary. If the question is resolved in the negative, the member may return to the Chamber.

This standing order has never been invoked but its pre-1963 predecessor (SO 303) was used on 22 occasions. The standing order was amended in 1963 to make it quite clear that its provisions would apply only in cases which are so grossly offensive that immediate action was imperative and that it could not be used for ordinary offences. In addition, provision was made for the House to judge the matter by requiring the Speaker to name the member immediately after he or she had left the Chamber.

Grave disorder in the House[9]

If grave disorder occurs in the House, the Speaker, without any question being put, can suspend the sitting and state the time at which they will resume the Chair; or adjourn the House to the next sitting (SO 95). On 12 occasions when grave disorder has occurred the Speaker has either suspended the sitting or adjourned the House until the next sitting.

On three occasions the House was suspended in circumstances surrounding the naming and suspension of a member:

• On 4 July 1919 the House was suspended for 15 minutes when disorder arose when Michael Considine (ALP, Barrier, NSW) refused to withdraw certain disorderly expressions. He had called the Government ‘a gang of murdering thieves’. When the sitting resumed, he still refused to withdraw the expressions despite appeals from the Speaker and the Deputy Prime Minister. He was named and suspended for one week as this was his second suspension.[10]
• On 9 April 1970 the House was suspended for just over half an hour after grave disorder arose when Gordon Bryant (ALP, Wills, Vic.) refused to leave the Chamber after having been named and suspended. He further refused when the House resumed and so the Speaker suspended the House till later in the morning. This time on the resumption of the sitting, Mr Bryant agreed to leave the Chamber and did so after he expressed regret that he had defied the Chair and apologised.[11]
• On 22 February 2008 the House was suspended for just over an hour when Luke Hartsuyker (NP, Cowper, NSW) refused to leave the Chamber after having been directed to leave for one hour and later named. The motion to suspend him had not been voted on.[12]

Disorder in the Federation Chamber/Main Committee

The Main Committee (which was renamed the Federation Chamber in February 2012) was established in 1994 to deal with non-controversial legislation. By its nature, disorderly behaviour has been rare. The Deputy Speaker, or the occupier of the Chair at the time, is responsible for keeping order. However, they do not have quite the same powers as the Speaker in the House to name a member nor order their withdrawal for one hour. Since its inception, the procedure has been that the Deputy Speaker report the disorderly incident to the House and it is the House which takes the necessary disciplinary action, usually naming and suspending the member concerned.

However, in 2006 the Deputy Speaker presiding over the Main Committee was granted the additional power to order the withdrawal of a member from the room for 15 minutes (SO 187). It was considered that having to suspend or adjourn proceedings and report disorder in the Main Committee to the House was likely to be more disruptive than the transgression itself.[13] To date, the Deputy Speaker has not used this power.

The naming and suspension of a member arising from disorderly conduct within the Main Committee has only occurred on three occasions:

• Mark Latham (ALP, Werriwa, NSW) was named and suspended on 31 October 1996 for having disregarded the authority of and reflected on the Chair. There had been many interjections during debate as to whether or not the Euthanasia Laws Bill should be debated in the Main Committee or in the House. Mr Latham had called for ‘a bit of order’ and then when the Deputy Speaker suggested that he might also be orderly, Latham had replied that he could do anything he liked in the Main Committee because ‘there are no procedures here’.[14]
• Wayne Swan (ALP, Lilley, Qld) was named and suspended on 8 February 2001 for having ‘persisted in disorderly behaviour by continuing to interject after being called to order, and thus defied the chair’.[15]
• Anthony Albanese (ALP, Grayndler, NSW) was named and suspended on 21 March 2002 for having, the previous day, ‘persisted in disorderly behaviour by refusing to withdraw a remark [that the Government had told lies about the children overboard issue] after being called to order and thus defied the Chair of the Main Committee’.[16]

There was one other occasion when the Deputy Speaker felt the need to adjourn the Main Committee and report disorder to the House. On 17 October 2002, Mark Latham spoke on a matter which the Deputy Speaker ruled was sub judice as it was evidence likely to be brought before a royal commission in New South Wales. Mr Latham moved a motion of dissent from the Deputy Speaker’s ruling and the Deputy Speaker said he would adjourn the Main Committee and refer it to the House. Mr Latham insisted that it be dealt with immediately. He was informed that the Main Committee did not have the authority to decide such motions, that only the House could do so. He further refused to accept this ruling and the order to resume his seat.  Later that day, the Deputy Speaker reported the matter to the House saying the member for Werriwa had ‘persisted in disorderly behaviour by defying the chair’. Mr Latham responded that he had misunderstood the nature of the Deputy Speaker’s ruling and withdrew his motion and apologised. The Speaker indicated that he had discussed the matter with the Deputy Speaker and decided not to proceed with any further disciplinary action, ‘given the events of this week and the spontaneous apology of the member for Werriwa’. He said by way of warning: ‘I am content simply to indicate to him that he has been extended grace that would not normally be extended and that he ought to bear that in mind in future.’[17]

Penalties for Disorderly Conduct

The consequences of a member’s disorderly conduct are partly at the Speaker’s discretion: their judgment as to the nature and severity of the transgression; how far they are inclined to proceed to a penalty; what penalty they feel is warranted; and partly related to how often the member has transgressed over a certain time period. The Speaker may decide, for example, that a member’s interjection warrants a warning only, or if persistent then a direction to leave the chamber immediately for one hour, or if particularly disruptive then a naming and suspension.

Matter not proceeded

It was not unusual in the early days after Federation for the Speaker to name a member but then for the matter to be not further proceeded with.  In the period to the end of 1912 eight members were named but only two were subsequently suspended.

Of the 1,352 occasions when a member was named or ordered from the chamber, the sanction of being suspended was not proceeded with on 135 occasions (10.0%). Of these 135, 103 (76.3%) were not proceeded with because the member apologised, often at the behest of the Prime Minister or other senior member. On 16 occasions (11.9%) the matter was not proceeded with because the named member agreed to withdraw the statement or words for which he was named. On a further 13 occasions (9.6%) the matter was not proceeded with because the Speaker decided not to take any further action. This was often in the name of good order or to bring a matter to a close. See Table 1.

On a further three occasions (2.2%) the motion to suspend was proceeded with but was defeated (negatived) on a vote of the House.

• On the first occasion (14 October 1938) Rowland James (ALP, Hunter, NSW) was named because he refused to withdraw ‘certain words’ but instead ‘hurled further abusive epithets at the honourable member for Macquarie’. Speaker George Bell (UAP, Darwin, Tas.) refused to allow the Treasurer to make an appeal on his behalf and the motion to suspend was put. However, the motion was lost (19–24) when the Government did not have sufficient numbers present to ensure its passage. Unlike a later occasion when a motion to suspend was defeated, there was no suggestion that the Speaker should resign.[18]
• On the second occasion (27 February 1975) the Minister for Labor and Immigration in the Whitlam Labor government, Clyde Cameron (ALP, Hindmarsh, SA), was named by Speaker Jim Cope (ALP, Sydney, NSW) for ‘refusing to apologise after disregarding the authority of the Chair’. Dr Jim Forbes (LP, Barker, SA) had accused him of telling ‘a monstrous lie’ during a personal explanation. Cameron demanded its withdrawal and became frustrated when Forbes prevaricated. During the Speaker’s attempt to get Forbes to withdraw the comment unconditionally, Cameron began to interject and when the Speaker called for order, he said: ‘Look, I don’t give a damn what you say. I –’. The Speaker asked Cameron to apologise to the Chair a number of times, and then finally: ‘Is the Minister going to apologise?’ Prime Minister Gough Whitlam immediately responded: ‘No’. The Speaker then named Cameron and the motion to suspend was put by the Opposition, even though it is usually done by the Leader of the House. During the ensuing division Whitlam spoke to the Speaker but he refused to divulge what was said. Government members refused to vote for Cameron’s suspension, the motion being defeated 59–55. The Speaker read the result of the division and immediately announced his own resignation.  This is the only instance when the Speaker has resigned as a result of a suspension motion being defeated.[19]
• The third occasion happened during the time of the Gillard minority Labor Government on 31 May 2011 when Bob Baldwin (LP, Paterson, NSW) was named for interjecting after a general warning had been given from the Chair. The subsequent division was defeated 72–71 with the support of Rob Oakeshott (IND, Lyne, NSW) who had voted against the motion because he supported private members’ rights. Despite the result of the division there was no suggestion that this was a vote of no confidence in the Speaker (Harry Jenkins, ALP, Scullin, Vic.) who was widely respected and liked. To reinforce the House’s confidence in the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott (LP, Warringah, NSW) immediately put a motion of confidence in the Speaker which was supported by Prime Minister Julia Gillard (ALP, Lalor, Vic.). The motion was passed on the voices thus averting a situation where a popular Speaker felt he should resign because a suspension motion had been defeated.

Table 1: Number (%) of instances where a matter was not proceeded with by reason

Reason for suspension after naming not being proceeded with	Number (%) of occasions when matter not proceeded with
Member having apologised or expressed regret	103 (76.3%)
Member having withdrawn statement	16 (11.9%)
Speaker decides to take no further action	13 (9.6%)
Motion to suspend was negatived	3 (2.2%)
	135

Expulsion

Until 1987 the Parliament had the power to expel a member from Parliament. However, the only occasion when this power was used was on 11 November 1920 when Hugh Mahon (ALP, Kalgoorlie, WA) was expelled for ‘seditious and disloyal utterances’ made outside the House at a public meeting in Melbourne. His speech criticized British policy in Ireland. He was judged ‘guilty of conduct unfitting him to remain a member’.[20] The Labor Opposition moved that he should be tried by a court, not by the Parliament, but this motion was defeated. Following the passing of the motion to expel him, another successful motion declared his seat vacant. He contested the subsequent by-election but was defeated.[21] Since the enactment of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 section 8, neither House has had the power to expel a member from its membership.[22]

Naming and Suspension

If a member is named and suspended then the current penalties are:

1. on the first occasion, for the 24 hour period from the time of suspension;
2. on the second occasion during the same calendar year, for the three consecutive sittings following the day of suspension; and
3. on a third or later occasion during the same calendar year, for the seven consecutive sittings following the day of suspension.

A suspension during a previous session or being ordered to withdraw for an hour (‘sin bin’) is not taken into account in determining these penalties.

Over the years these penalties have altered as can be seen in Table 2. Major changes occurred in 1994 following two reports by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure in 1992 and 1993. The first report The Standing Orders Governing Disorder and Strangers recommended that not only should the length of the penalties for second and third suspensions be reduced from seven to three days and from 28 to seven days but that they should be for consecutive sitting not calendar days.[23] In tabling the report the Hon Gordon Scholes (ALP, Corio, Vic.) said:

We have recommended that those periods be changed to 24 hours, three sitting days and seven sitting days, which means that the same penalty would apply, irrespective of when the suspension took place. At the moment, a member could be suspended at the end of a sitting period and serve a lesser penalty than someone who got 24 hours earlier in the week. We think that sitting days are appropriate for suspension times. The suspension times recommended are slightly less than the existing penalties but, depending on which day of the week it is, a member’s suspension could be longer than under the current provisions.[24]

Table 2: Changes in periods of suspension following a member being named and suspended

Dates	First suspension	Second suspension	Third suspension
6 Jun 1901 to 21 Mar 1950	Remainder of the day’s sitting	1 week	1 month
21 Mar 1950 to 21 Feb 1994	24 hours	7 days excluding the day of suspension. Any suspension in a previous Session shall be disregarded.	28 days excluding the day of suspension. Any suspension in a previous Session shall be disregarded.
21 Feb 1994 onwards	24 hours	3 consecutive sittings excluding the day of suspension.	7 consecutive sittings excluding the day of suspension.

Suspension by resolution of the House

On three occasions the House imposed its own sanction by resolution on matters of privilege:

• On 11 November 1913 David McGrath (ALP, Ballaarat, Vic.) was suspended for ‘the remainder of the session’ for ‘reflecting on the Chair’. He had been accused of saying in Ballarat words ‘to the effect that the Speaker [Elliot Johnson, LP, Lang, NSW] had lost the confidence and respect of honourable members, that he had deliberately altered a Hansard proof, that he had acted in a biased manner, and was proving himself a bitter partisan.’ He declined on several occasions to admit or deny the accuracy of the press report containing the statement, not having read it. The Speaker sought to have the matter lapse but Prime Minister Joseph Cook (LP, Parramatta, NSW) proceeded with his motion to suspend him. The Clerk then read out the newspaper report. Opposition members refused to act as tellers.[25] He was suspended on the motion: ‘That the honourable member for Ballaarat be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session unless he sooner unreservedly retracts the words uttered by him at Ballarat on Sunday, the 9th November, and reflecting on Mr Speaker, and apologises to the House.’[26] This was the first time a member had been suspended for the remainder of the Session which meant he was suspended for 39 days until 19 December. In the next Parliament on 29 April 1915 the House resolved to expunge the resolution of suspension from the journals of the House ‘as being subversive of the right of an honourable member to freely address his constituents’.[27]
• On 24 February 1987 Wilson Tuckey (LP, O’Connor, WA), who was already under suspension, was further suspended for seven sitting days for having reflected on the character of the Speaker (Joan Child, ALP, Henty, Vic.) and being in contempt of the House. He had made remarks outside the House that, among other things, the Speaker was ‘a political animal’ and that she should resign.[28]
• On 21 December 1989 Ken Aldred (LP, Bruce, Vic.) was suspended for two sitting days, following a reference to the Privileges Committee, for refusing to withdraw an allegation against Lewis Kent (ALP, Hotham, Vic.) that he was essentially an agent of a foreign power.[29]

Directed to withdraw from the Chamber for one hour (‘Sin Bin’)

The 1992 report, The Standing Orders Governing Disorder and Strangers recommended that the Speaker be given the power to order from the Chamber a member who is unduly disruptive, without having to go through the sometimes more disruptive process of naming and suspending them. The period would be determined by the Speaker but the member would not be denied the right to vote in divisions.[30] A similar provision had been in the standing orders from March 1950 to August 1963. The rationale for such a recommendation was expressed by Gordon Scholes:

In a moment of heat in the chamber, perhaps during the Budget Speech or the reply to the Budget Speech or on some other occasion, the Speaker may feel that it is not appropriate to move for the suspension of a member or that a member’s behaviour is such that the penalty of suspension is not warranted but, nevertheless, it would be in the interests of the House for that member to be removed for a short time.

The recommendation that the right of such a member to vote in divisions not be taken away is to protect the House against any action which may change the voting pattern or change voting in the House. Apart from divisions, the member would be expected to remain out of the House. If the member refused to comply, or if the member acted other than in the spirit of that order from the Chair, the provision remains that the Speaker could name the member concerned.

We were concerned to put before the House proposals which would assist the workings of the House and which would assist the Chair in keeping order. I think it is fair to say that previous speakers have felt that suspension is the blunt end of the axe and that quite often it is not an appropriate penalty for the crime of the time. If the Speaker had an additional weapon, which I suppose we could call a soft option—or what could be called a sin-bin—it would add to the flexibility available to the Speaker to keep order.[31]

This report was overtaken by the 1993 federal election and another report by the same committee (About time: bills, questions and working hours—report of the inquiry into reform of the House of Representatives) was tabled on 28 October 1993. This committee accepted the earlier report’s recommendations but suggested that the period of ejection be set at one hour and that the member also be excluded from any divisions occurring during that hour. The Government accepted both these recommendations.[32] In support of its recommendations the Committee noted that the process of suspending a member is ‘time-consuming and is itself disruptive of proceedings.’ It also made the point that it saw the ‘sin bin’ as ‘a means of removing a source of disorder rather than as a punishment. It would enable a situation to be defused quickly before it deteriorated, and without disrupting proceedings to any great extent.’[33]

The report was broadly accepted with some members in their speeches concentrating on the effectiveness of the new penalties; some on the need for the Speaker to enforce the standing orders and to do so fairly and in a bi-partisan fashion;[34] while others considered it was up to all members to make the Parliament work by taking responsibility for adhering to the rules and procedures.[35]

Nevertheless, there was some opposition to the change with Ian Sinclair (NPA, New England, NSW) describing the ‘sin bin’ idea as ‘gimmickry’.[36] He said:

As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to go along with the idea of having a one-hour suspension. But it is totally inappropriate for a person, who demonstrably is still a member of the governing party of the place, to be in a position to suspend members for one hour, or any other period, without a vote of this chamber.[37]

Bob Horne (LP, Paterson, NSW) sought to allay concerns about the Speaker having increased powers, saying:

If there is one way to encourage him [the Speaker] to be independent, it is by giving him that power and waiting to see what happens, because the House would not allow that power to be abused.[38]

Effectiveness of the sanctions on disorderly behaviour in maintaining order

The penalties imposed for disorderly conduct have changed little in the past 20 years since the introduction of the ‘sin bin’. It is pertinent to ask how effective they have been in maintaining order in the House since then. Just over a year after the ‘sin bin’ was introduced on 21 February 1994 the Procedure Committee conducted a review of the procedural changes that had come into operation. It felt that the application of the new power was working well and that it enhanced the Speaker’s authority. It noted that the power had been used infrequently and expected any inconsistencies in its application would be ironed out over time as everyone became more used to it.[39]

Certainly the use of the ‘sin bin’ began modestly with it being invoked in its first three years: on five (1994), 11 (1995) and nine (1996) occasions. However, in 1997 it jumped to 33 and has never fallen below 20 since. The number of instances when a member has been named but the matter not proceeded with has reduced dramatically since 1994. This would seem to suggest that where Speakers had been reluctant to name and suspend, they have adopted the ‘sin bin’ option instead.

It is interesting to note that the average number of suspensions per year has increased from 2.5 before 1994 to 3.7 after the ‘sin bin’ was introduced. This would seem to suggest that disorder on this measure alone has increased and may be reflective of a higher level of disorder since 1994 or at least a greater willingness of Chairs to take action. However, in the last four years (2010–2013) the average number of suspensions per year has fallen to pre-1994 levels and there were none in 2013 to the end of the 43rd Parliament in August. On the other hand the average number of ‘sin bin’ sanctions during these last four years has been much higher at 78 per year compared to the overall post-1994 average of 45.4.

Table 3: Disciplinary actions before and after the introduction of the ‘sin bin’

Period	Not proceeded or negatived	Named and Suspended	Sin binned	Total
Pre–1994	132	236	Not applicable	368
Average per year (93 yrs)	1.4	2.5	Not applicable	4.0
Post–1994	3	74	907	984
Average per year (20 yrs)	0.2	3.7	45.4	49.2
Total	135	310	907	1,352

Table 4: Disciplinary actions per year since the introduction of the ‘sin bin’

Year	Not proceeded or negatived	Suspended	Sin binned	Total
1994		1	5	6
1995		5	11	16
1996		6	9	15
1997		6	33	39
1998		3	23	26
1999	1	2	29	32
2000		3	37	40
2001	1	6	37	44
2002		4	20	24
2003		8	39	47
2004		4	25	29
2005		1	55	56
2006		4	94	98
2007		3	63	66
2008		5	53	58
2009		7	62	69
2010		2	50	52
2011	1	3	86	90
2012		1	126	127
2013 to Aug		0	50	50
Total	3	74	907	984

 

It is difficult to say with certainty whether or not disorderly behavior has increased over the years. Anecdotal evidence and the number of disciplinary actions taken against members would suggest that it has. However, it could be that the level of disorder has remained the same but that Chairs are tolerating it less and taking more disciplinary actions. Wilson Tuckey had expressed this concern when the ‘sin bin’ was being contemplated in 1993. He had been suspended many times and possibly saw his future under the proposed standing order when he said:

Honourable members would not be surprised that I am not very much in favour of the sin bin. I do not really think that would be very wise and, in fact, it would be a situation that might make it just a bit too easy for the Speaker when it is a prerogative of the parliament.[40]

As to the effectiveness of the ‘sin bin’ in avoiding the disruption caused by the cumbersome and time consuming procedure of naming and suspending, again it is difficult to argue. The number of naming and suspensions has definitely decreased in recent years. However, as the number of ‘sin bin’ sanctions has increased, it may be that this penalty has contributed to greater disorder because members view it as little more than a slap on the wrist and of little deterrent value. While Speakers relate many stories of the public’s disgust with the behaviour of members in general during Question Time, there appears to be little negative feedback given to the individual members who are ‘sin binned’.

Even before it was introduced, Harry Woods (ALP, Page, NSW) felt that not only would the ‘sin bin’ penalty have little effect on disorderly behaviour but that some members ‘would wear being kicked out once in a while with no further penalty as a badge of honour’.[41] While this may have been true in the early years, the sheer number of different members being ‘sin binned’ now would suggest that its value in this respect has diminished.

So, whether or not SO 94(a) has had any effect on controlling disorderly behavior is difficult to determine and in fact it may be unrealistic to expect any such penalty or the actions of any one person, the Speaker, to manage it. It may be that only the will of the Parliament can ensure how orderly or disorderly its proceedings are. As John Sharp (NPA, Hume, NSW) said in 1993:

That we are debating these procedural changes reflects the fact that the people in this House have not maintained the spirit of the standing orders to the degree we would have liked. It boils down to one critical element: all of the procedures and standing orders of the parliament are really only as good as the people who work within the parliament. It all depends on how effectively they want the standing orders to work. I think it is important for us as members of parliament to realise that all the standing orders and procedures will not overcome a failure by members of the parliament to make the parliament work. It is not up to the standing orders and the procedures; it is up to us to make the parliament work effectively.[42]

Daryl Melham (ALP, Banks, NSW), when speaking about the review report in 1995, made a similar point but probably injected a note of reality as to members’ expectations of the ‘sin bin’, if not the public’s, when he said:

Question time is theatre, and we are all guilty of participating. … If we are fair dinkum in terms of the operation of the sin-bin and if it is what we want—total decorum and total silence when a question is asked or when a minister is answering a question or when the Prime Minister is answering a question—then I say to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker that they should exercise the sin-bin a lot more harshly and a lot more often than they do. I think that if there were two or three days in succession where the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, whichever is in charge, threw out three or four government members and three or four opposition members … then we would get a question time where we could hear a pin drop.

But is that what we really want? The truth is that in our heart of hearts most of us do not. I find question time the most engaging and enjoyable part of the operation of the parliament and it is the most electric when the Prime Minister is there. …  It is a balance. So let us not get on with the humbug. I think the power is there. I actually enjoy the interchange between government and opposition members, but I do believe that there are times when that power should be exercised a bit more. I think that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker have shown enormous tolerance to us as members of the parliament.[43]

Periods spent out of the Chamber

In most cases of disorderly conduct (88.2%) members have been required to spend from one hour to 24 hours outside of the Chamber (see Table 5).

On only one occasion has a member been suspended for a month because he had been named for a third time within the one session. This occurred on 28 August 1919 when Michael Considine (ALP, Barrier, NSW) was suspended for disregarding the authority of the Chair by refusing to withdraw a disorderly expression.[44]

On 18 (1.3%) occasions members were suspended for about a week or seven days, the period of time being expressed variously depending upon the wording of the standing order at the time. This was the penalty for members who had been named for a second time during a session. From 1994 the period of suspension for being named and suspended during a calendar year was reduced to the remainder of the day’s sitting and the next three sitting days. Just three members have received this sanction.

On three occasions the House imposed its own sanctions by resolution on matters of privilege. They were for the remainder of the session; for two sitting days including the day of sanction; and for seven sitting days including the day of sanction.

No penalty was imposed on 135 (10%) occasions.

Table 5: Time periods spent out of the Chamber

Time Period	Number (%) of disciplinary actions
1 hour (‘sin bin’)	907 (67.1)
Remainder of day’s sitting	89 (6.6)
24 hours	196 (14.5)
2 sitting days including today (House resolution)	1 (0.1)
Remainder of day’s sitting and next 3 sitting days	3 (0.2)
1 week; 7 days; Remainder of day’s sitting and next 7 consecutive days	18 (1.3)
7 sitting days including today (House resolution)	1 (0.1)
1 month	1 (0.1)
Remainder of session (House resolution)	1 (0.1)
None as matter not proceeded with	132 (9.8)
None as motion to suspend negatived	3 (0.2)
	1,352

Removal from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms

If a member refuses to follow the Speaker’s direction in a case of disorderly conduct, the Speaker may order the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the member or take the member into custody (SO 94(f)). No cases have occurred of a member being taken into custody by the Serjeant-at-Arms.

Removal by the Serjeant has usually occurred after a member has been named and suspended but has refused to leave the Chamber. There have been 22 occasions when the Chair has called for the assistance of the Serjeant-at-Arms during the naming and suspension of a member and one occasion when such a call was made when a member was directed to leave the Chamber for one hour. See Appendix B for a list of these instances.

Reasons for disciplinary actions

In the early days, the stated reasons given by the Speaker for suspending a member tended to mirror those outlined in the standing orders. So, being suspended for disorderly behaviour was how it was expressed in the standing orders. Nowadays, members tend to be suspended or directed to leave the chamber because of interjecting or continuing to interject. Standing Order 65(b) states ‘When a member is speaking, no member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance to interrupt the member.’ Standing Order 66 indicates very specifically when members may interrupt proceedings with the implication that at other times members must be heard in silence.^[45] However, this rarely happens and is rarely insisted upon unless the Speaker feels that the interjections have reached such a degree as to be considered disorderly. It is at each Speaker’s discretion to decide whether or not he or she warns a member before disciplining them.

Table 6 covering the 38th to the 43rd Parliaments (1996 to August 2013) gives some of the broad reasons why members are disciplined. These are by no means mutually exclusive. For example, ‘refusing to withdraw from the Chamber’ could also be categorised as ‘disregarding the authority of the Chair’. They are classified in this way in the table to give some indication of the sorts of behaviours for which members have been disciplined and to show trends from the 38th Parliament (1996) to date.  The major reason for members being disciplined in each Parliament was interjecting followed by disorderly conduct, abusing Parliamentary procedures, and disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Table 6: Reasons for disciplinary action by Parliament

Reason for disciplinary action	38th Parl.	39th Parl.	40th Parl.	41st Parl.	42nd Parl.	43rd Parl.	Total
Abusing the forms of the House eg raising frivolous points of order	5	3	0	1	27	23	59
Defying or disregarding the authority of the Chair	5	2	6	3	8	4	28
Disorderly conduct	5	7	4	36	53	29	134
Interjecting	48	108	80	177	78	222	713
Reflecting on the Chair or a member	0	2	5	1	1	0	9
Refusing to resume their seat	5	0	0	0	1	0	6
Refusing to withdraw a remark or expression	3	1	2	4	0	0	10
Refusing to withdraw from the Chamber	2	0	0	1	0	0	3
Total	73	123	97	223	168	278	962

 

Patterns of disciplinary action

When disorder most occurs

It would come as no surprise to discover that most disorderly conduct occurs during Question Time when almost all members are present and when Parliament is at its most political. Since 1994 when the ‘sin bin’ was introduced, it has accounted for 77.8% of instances of disorder. When other types of parliamentary proceedings which often occur during or just after Question Time (censure motions, personal explanations, questions to the Speaker and matters of public importance) are included, then the degree of disorderly behaviour rises to 90.1% of all disorder during this period of the sitting day, usually between about 2 pm to 4 pm.

Table 7: Number of instances of disorder by type of parliamentary proceeding from 1994 to 2013

Parliamentary Proceedings	Number (%) of instances of disorderly conduct
Question Time	766 (77.8)
Matters of Public Importance (MPI)	54 (5.5)
Censure Motions	29 (2.9)
Motions to suspend standing orders	23 (2.3)
Questions to the Speaker	20 (2.0)
Personal Explanations	19 (1.9)
Bills	20 (2.0)
Other	53 (5.4)
Total	984

Disciplinary actions across the sitting fortnight

Disciplinary actions occur more frequently on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays accounting for 87% of all sanctions. This is unsurprising given that most sitting days occur on those days thus affording greater opportunity for members to be sanctioned for disorderly conduct. However, members are more likely to receive the opprobrium of the Chair as the week progresses with 9.1% of disciplinary actions occurring on Mondays, 21.8% on Tuesdays, 29.9% on Wednesdays and 35.4% on Thursdays. Whether this increase throughout the week is due to an increase in disruptive behaviour by members or a decrease in tolerance by the Chair, or a combination of both, is difficult to tell. Further details can be found in Appendix C.

Disorderly behaviour resulting in disciplinary action is no more frequent in the second week of a sitting fortnight than the first week. Overall, in the past 24 years (1990–2013) in only 49% of sitting fortnights was the number of disciplinary actions higher in the second week than the first. In 21% of sitting fortnights the number of disciplinary actions was the same in each week and in 30% less in the second week than the first. See Appendix D for details.

Who receives disciplinary action for disorderly behaviour

Number and list of members disciplined

Of the 1,093 members who have served in Parliament since 1901, 300 (27.4%) have been named and/or suspended or ‘sin binned’. This does not include two Greens senators (Bob Brown (AG, Tas.) and Kerry Nettle (AG, NSW)) who were suspended during a joint sitting of both Houses in the House of Representatives chamber to hear an address by US President George W. Bush on 23 October 2003. Table 8 lists the members who have had 10 or more disciplinary actions taken against them. The full table of all members, Including the two senators, who have been disciplined is contained in Appendix E.

From Table 8 it can be seen that Christopher Pyne is a clear leader over Anthony Albanese in terms of the total number of disciplinary actions (45 to 34) but also in terms of being ‘sin binned’ (43 to 30).

Wilson Tuckey wrongly has the reputation for being named and suspended the most number of times with 14. In terms of suspensions alone he comes after Eddie Ward (ALP, East Sydney, NSW) on 16. Third in this category is William Wentworth (LP, Mackellar, NSW) on 10 suspensions. It should be noted that had Rowland James not been so ready to apologise for his actions and the Speaker not so ready to accept his apologies, then he would also have ranked highly on the number of times being suspended. On 10 occasions he was named but not suspended (over twice as many as the next member in this category) because his apologies were accepted and the matter was not proceeded with. 

If the length of time spent in Parliament is taken into account, then Julia Irwin (ALP, Fowler, NSW) could be considered the most disorderly member. From 1998 to 2010 she was disciplined 30 times or about 2.5 times per year. This compares with Christopher Pyne’s record of 45 times from 1993 to 2013 or about 2.25 times per year.

Table 8: Members listed by the type and number of disciplinary actions taken against them

Member and Party	Not proceeded	Negatived	Suspended	Sin binned	Total
Pyne, Christopher (LP)			2	43	45
Albanese, Anthony (ALP)			4	30	34
Tuckey, Wilson (LP)	1		14	16	31
Irwin, Julia (ALP)			2	28	30
Hockey, Joe (LP)				27	27
Tanner, Lindsay (ALP)			2	25	27
Dutton, Peter (LP)				26	26
Laming, Andrew (LP)			1	19	20
Crean, Simon (ALP)			3	17	20
Fitzgibbon, Joel (ALP)			2	17	19
O’Keefe, Neil (ALP)	1			18	19
Ripoll, Bernie (ALP)				18	18
Plibersek, Tanya (ALP)				17	17
Bishop, Bronwyn (LP)				17	17
Kerr, Duncan (ALP)				17	17
Ward, Eddie (ALP)	1		16		17
Simpkins, Luke (LP)				16	16
Snowdon, Warren (ALP)			2	14	16
Crosio, Janice (ALP)				15	15
Swan, Wayne (ALP)			4	11	15
Robert, Stuart (LP)			1	13	14
Randall, Don (LP)				14	14
Morrison, Scott (LP)			1	13	14
James, Rowland (ALP)	10	1	3		14
Bevis, Arch (ALP)			2	11	13
Briggs, Jamie (LP)				13	13
Jones, Ewen (LP)				13	13
Emerson, Craig (ALP)			1	11	12
Hunt, Greg (LP)				12	12
Mirabella, Sophie (LP)			1	11	12
Latham, Mark (ALP)			2	9	11
Wilkie, Kim (ALP)				11	11
Christensen, George (NP)				11	11
McLeay, Leo (ALP)			4	7	11
O’Connor, Brendan (ALP)				11	11
O’Connor, Gavan (ALP)			2	9	11
Adams, Dick (ALP)			2	9	11
Wentworth, William (LP)			10		10
Ferguson, Martin (ALP)			3	7	10
Haylen, Les (ALP)	2		8		10
Champion, Nick (ALP)				10	10
Zahra, Christian (ALP)			1	9	10
Jensen, Dennis (LP)			1	9	10

Disciplinary actions by gender

Of the 1,352 occasions when members have been disciplined, 191 (14.1%) have been women. However, adjusting for the fact that the first woman did not enter Parliament until 21 August 1943, and that 114 male MPs had already been named and/or suspended, this percentage rises to 15.3%. The first woman to be named was Elaine Darling (ALP, Lilley, Qld) on 12 May 1981 but her suspension was not proceeded with.  She had sought to put a motion condemning the Government for its approach to Queensland’s hospital system. The Government moved that she be not further heard but she continued her remarks despite being told to resume her seat and then being warned by Deputy Speaker Percy Millar (NCP, Wide Bay, Qld). She was then named but following the intercession of her colleagues and a Minister she was permitted to apologise. Having done so, the motion to suspend her was withdrawn.[46]

Table 9: Disciplinary actions by gender

Gender	Number (%) of members disciplined	Number (%) of occasions when named but not proceeded with or negatived	Number (%) of occasions when named and suspended	Number (%) of occasions when sin binned	Total number (%) of disciplinary actions
Female	37* (12.3)	1 (0.7)	8 (2.6)	182 (20.1)	191 (14.1)
Male	265* (87.7)	134 (99.3)	302 (97.4)	725 (79.9)	1,161 (85.9)
Total	302	135	310	907	1,352

 

*includes Senator Kerry Nettle and Senator Bob Brown

The first woman member to be ordered from the House was Carmen Lawrence (ALP, Fremantle, WA) who was ‘sin binned’ on 19 June 1996 for continuing to interject during an answer to a question without notice.[47] Later in the year on 9 December De-Anne Kelly (NPA, Dawson, Qld) and Jackie Kelly (LP, Lindsay, NSW) became the first women members to be named and suspended, for ‘disregarding the authority of the Chair’. They had sought to leave the Chamber during a vote on the Euthanasia Laws Bill but were told to resume their places before the tellers had been appointed. However, to indicate that they wished to abstain from the vote, they stood in the aisle which is not what the Speaker had asked them to do.[48]

The eight women members (including one senator) who have been named and suspended from the House of Representatives are Julia Gillard (ALP, Lalor, Vic.), Julia Irwin (twice), De-Anne Kelly, Jackie Kelly, Cheryl Kernot (ALP, Dickson, Qld), Sophie Mirabella (LP, Indi, Vic.) and Senator Kerry Nettle.

Disciplinary actions against parties in Government and Opposition

The major parties (Labor and the Coalition) account for 97.7% of all disciplinary actions with the Independents and minor parties subject to just 2.3%. Labor members have been disciplined on 716 occasions (54.2%) and Coalition members on 605 occasions (45.8%).

Non-government members have accounted for about 91% of all instances of disciplinary actions from 1901 to 2013 irrespective of whether Labor or the Coalition has been in Opposition. With small variations this figure remained constant for both the Labor Opposition during the Howard years (91.3%) and the Coalition Opposition during the Rudd/Gillard governments (89.5%).

Table 10: Number (%) and type of disciplinary actions taken against Government and Non-government members

Members	Not proceeded with or negatived	Suspended	Sin binned	Total
Government	22 (16.3%)	25 (8.1%)	79 (8.7%)	126 (9.3%)
Non–government	113 (83.7%)	285 (91.9%)	828 (91.3%)	1,226 (90.7%)
Total	135	310	907	1,352

 

Federally, Labor has been in Opposition 66% of the time and in Government 34% of the time since 1901. Conversely, the Coalition has been in Opposition 34% of the time and 66% of the time in Government. Given these ratios and that for both parties their members are disciplined on an equal percentage of occasions (91%) when they are in Opposition, it would be expected that the percentage of disciplinary actions taken against each party would reflect the time each has spent in Opposition. So, Labor members should have been disciplined on 66% of occasions and the Opposition on 34% of the occasions. However, Labor has only accounted for 54% to the Coalition’s 46%. Therefore, on this measure the Coalition is disciplined or causes itself to be disciplined 35% more than would be expected by the percentage of time they have spent in Opposition.

Table 11: Number (%) of disciplinary actions by party when in Government and Opposition

	Matter not proceeded with or negatived	Suspended	Sin binned	Total
Coalition in Government	2	19	34	55 (9.1%)
Coalition in Opposition	38	118	394	550 (90.9%)
Total Coalition	40 (29.6%)	137 (44.2%)	428 (47.2%)	605 (44.7%)
Labor in Government	16	5	45	66 (9.2%)
Labor in Opposition	69	154	427	650 (90.8%)
Total Labor	85 (63.0%)	159 (51.3%)	472 (52.0%)	716 (53.0%)
Coalition and Labor	125 (92.6%)	296 (95.5%)	900 (99.2%)	1,321 (97.7%)
Independents and minor parties	10 (7.4%)	14 (4.5%)	7 (0.8%)	31 (2.3%)
Total	135	310	907	1,352

 

Table 12: Number (%) of disciplinary actions taken against Labor and Coalition members when in Opposition for the Howard (38th–41st) and Rudd/Gillard (42nd–43rd) Parliaments

Parliament	Disciplinary actions against Labor and Coalition members when in Opposition	Total disciplinary actions
38th (30.4.1996–15.7.1998)	62 (84.9%) Labor	73
39th (10.11.1998–8.10.2001)	113 (91.9%) Labor	123
40th (12.2.2002–30.8.2004)	83 (85.6%) Labor	97
41st (16.11.2004–15.10.2007)	213 (95.5%) Labor	223
Average for Howard Governments	471 (91.3%) Labor	516
42nd (12.2.2008–19.7.2010)	151 (89.9%) Coalition	168
43rd (28.9.2010–12.8.2013)	248 (89.2%) Coalition	278
Average for Rudd/Gillard Governments	399 (89.5%) Coalition	446

Position/office of members disciplined

Of the 1,352 instances when members have been disciplined, 557 (41.2%) were backbenchers; 30 (2.2%) were crossbenchers; 603 (44.6%) were shadow ministers, ministers, etc; and 162 (12.0%) were members performing their duties as parliamentary office holders (eg manager of opposition business; whip). There is some overlap as parliamentary office holders can also occupy ministerial or shadow ministerial positions.

Table 13: Disciplinary actions against members by their position

Member’s position	Matter not proceeded or negatived	Suspended	Sin binned	Total
Backbencher	70 (12.6%)	145 (26.0%)	342 (61.4%)	557 (41.2%)
Crossbencher	10 (33.3%)	14 (46.7%)	6 (20.0%)	30 (2.2%)
Shadow minister, minister	47 (7.8%)	125 (20.7%)	431 (71.5%)	603 (44.6%)
Parliamentary  Office Holder	8 (4.9%)	26 (16.0%)	128 (79.0%)	162 (12.0%)
	135 (10.0%)	310 (22.9%)	907 (67.1%)	1,352

 

When backbenchers and crossbenchers have been disorderly they have more likely been ‘forgiven’ (the matter has not been proceeded) than shadow ministers and ministers and parliamentary office holders when they transgress. However, when their transgression does proceed backbenchers and crossbenchers are more often suspended than directed to leave the chamber. In contrast ministers/shadow ministers and parliamentary office holders are more often ‘sin binned’ than named and suspended when they transgress. 

A prime minister has never been named, suspended nor ‘sin binned’ but Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan was ‘sin binned’ on 20 March 2012. He had been asked a question about company tax cuts for small businesses and answered an Opposition interjection: ‘He’s gone into shock!’ with ‘I am always shocked by Curly over there, I can tell you that, Mr Speaker.’ It was reported that he later tweeted: ‘I apologise to Curly from the Three Stooges for any offence caused by comparing him to Andrew Robb; I’m sure Curly wouldn’t be opposing tax cuts.’[49]

On 18 September 1931 Deputy Prime Minister Edward (Ted) Theodore (ALP, Dalley, NSW) was named for ‘disregarding the authority of the Chair’. Archdale Parkhill (UAP, Warringah, NSW) had accused him of owning 12,000 shares in a company at the last election. Mr Theodore responded that the records did not show that, that it was ‘a lie’ and that ‘The Honourable member is a dirty little scandal monger’. He was ordered to withdraw the remark which he did but he also denied the share ownership and explained that as Mr Parkhill would not accept his assurance, he called him a liar. The Speaker warned him he would be named if he did not obey the Chair, to which he replied: ‘Fire away.’ The Speaker then named him for ‘wilful disobedience of the Chair.’ Prime Minister, James Scullin asked him to withdraw and apologise to the Chair to which Theodore replied: ‘Certainly I withdraw it.’ Having expressed regret; the matter was not further proceeded with.[50]

Four Leaders of the Opposition have been removed from the Chamber and three have been named but the matter has not been proceeded with:

• On 20 August 2012 Tony Abbott (LP, Warringah, NSW) was ‘sin binned’ by the Deputy Speaker, Anna Burke (ALP, Chisholm, Vic.) for disorderly behaviour. He had failed to withdraw an unparliamentary remark without qualification when asked to do so. He was the first Leader of the Opposition sent from the House under SO 94(a).[51]
• On 24 September 1986 John Howard (LP, Bennelong, NSW) was named and suspended for disregarding the authority of the Chair. He had refused to withdraw an allegation against the Treasurer that he had uttered a ‘parliamentary lie’.[52]
• On 1 June 1949 Robert Menzies (LP, Kooyong, Vic.) was named and suspended for persistently interjecting during a speech by Arthur Calwell (ALP, Melbourne, Vic.). Despite intercessions from Mr Calwell, the Speaker insisted Mr Menzies be suspended.[53]
• In the early hours of 18 December 1914 Joseph Cook (LP, Parramatta, NSW) was named and suspended from the service of the House ‘until he returns with Mr Speaker’s consent and apologises to Mr Speaker’ for ‘rising and continuing his address to the House though called to order by Mr Speaker, and using language which Mr Speaker considered an insult to the Chair’. Later that day he sent a letter of apology to the Speaker and was permitted to return to the chamber.[54]

Three other Opposition Leaders have been named or ordered from the chamber but their suspension/ejection did not proceed. Summaries of their circumstances are as follows:

• On 25 October 1955 Bert Evatt (ALP, Barton, NSW) was ordered to leave the chamber by the Deputy Speaker for having continued to interject after warnings had been given by the Chair. He immediately apologised and was not required to withdraw from the House.[55]
• On 7 September 1984 Andrew Peacock (LP, Kooyong, Vic.) was named by the Speaker for defying the Chair. He had insisted on making a statement in response to Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s additional answer to an earlier question without notice. Following intercession from Leader of the House, Mick Young (ALP, Port Adelaide, SA), who was reluctant to put the motion for suspension, it was agreed that there was some misunderstanding about procedure, and so the Speaker agreed to let the matter rest.[56]
• On 24 June 1999 Kim Beazley (ALP, Brand, WA) was ‘sin binned’ for interjecting in a disorderly manner. The Speaker had previously issued a general warning and ordered out three members. Michael Lee (ALP, Dobell, NSW) asked the Speaker to reconsider his ruling which he agreed to do if Mr Beazley apologised. This he did and was not required to leave the chamber.[57]

Disciplinary actions against members by each State and Territory

Based on the current distribution of 150 seats amongst the states and territories, the proportion of disciplinary actions taken against members from each state or territory is broadly in line with their representation. For example, New South Wales has 32% of the seats and its members have received 35.8% of the disciplinary actions; Victoria 24.6% of the seats for 24.8% of the sanctions; Queensland (20% seats, 15.2% sanctions); South Australia (7.3% seats, 8.3% sanctions); Western Australia (10% seats, 9.5% sanctions); Tasmania (3.3% seats, 4% sanctions); Australian Capital Territory (1.3% seats, 0.4% sanctions); Northern Territory (1.3% seats, 2.1% sanctions). No one state or territory accounts for a significantly disproportionate percentage of disciplinary actions. This has largely remained the case for the ‘sin bin’ sanction since it was introduced in 1994.  See Appendix F for more details.

External factors which may affect disorderly behaviour

Televising of Parliament

On 12 February 1991 the proceedings of the House were allowed to be televised. The Manager of Opposition Business, Wal Fife (LP, Hume, NSW) reiterated the Leader of the Opposition Dr John Hewson’s (LP, Wentworth, NSW) belief ‘that this would go a long way towards improving the standards of this chamber and improving the public’s perception of politicians and the political process in Australia.’[58] If the number of namings and suspensions is any guide to the standard of behaviour in the chamber, then this belief appears to have been in vain. In the two years before the televising of the proceedings, 1989 and 1990, five and two members were named and suspended respectively. In the two years after televising began, 1991 and 1992, four and seven members were named and suspended respectively, and one and five were named without being suspended.

Relocation of Parliament

Parliament moved from Melbourne to Canberra during 1927. This does not appear to have had any significant effect on the extent of disorderly behaviour. There had been no suspensions in 1926 and before the move in May 1927. After the move there was one suspension in December 1927 and two namings that did not proceed to suspension in 1928.

Parliament moved again in May 1988 to the new Parliament House. In the period before the move (1987 to May 1988) there had been four suspensions compared to nine suspensions in the period after the move (May 1988 to 1989). Although this represents a doubling in suspensions it is impossible to tell what the effect of moving to new surroundings on disorderly behaviour might have been compared to other factors.  

Size of the House of Representatives

It may be expected that with more members in the Chamber there is a greater likelihood of disorderly behaviour. The number of members of the House has increased significantly on two occasions. At the December 1949 election the number of members increased from 75 to 123, and at the December 1984 election they increased again from 125 to 148.

There was no significant difference in disorderly behaviour from the 18th Parliament (6.11.1946–27.10.1949) to the 19th Parliament (22.2.1950–16.3.1951) with 14 disciplinary actions in the former and 12 in the latter.

A similar conclusion could be reached after the increase in members from the 33rd Parliament (21.4.1983–24.10.1984) to the 34th Parliament (21.2.1985–5.6.1987). There were 13 disciplinary actions in the 33rd Parliament compared to 16 in the 34th.

Role of the Speaker

The orderly conduct of the proceedings of the House is the responsibility of all members, but it is the Speaker and other occupiers of the Chair who are entrusted with ensuring that order is maintained and that disorderly conduct is kept under control. So, when using the number of disciplinary actions taken by the Speaker as a measure of disorderly conduct, it must be remembered that the Chair’s tolerance for disorderly behaviour and the way they deal with it will have a bearing on this measure. For example, if five members interject during another member’s speech and each is ‘sin binned’ because the Chair refuses to tolerate such behaviour, this will show up as five disciplinary actions in the statistics. On the other hand, if the Chair warns four of the interjecting members and only ‘sin bins’ one member, then just a single disciplinary action will be recorded in the statistics. So, the measure of disorderly behaviour under a tolerant Speaker will be less than under a strict Speaker presiding over the same degree of such behaviour. In fact there may be more disorder under a tolerant Speaker, as members take no great heed of their orders, than under a strict Speaker where members soon realise that disorder will be quickly dealt with.

Bearing the above in mind, in terms of the number of members disciplined under each speakership, the highest number (265) occurred under the speakership of Labor’s Harry Jenkins (12.2.2008–24.11.2011) followed by Liberal’s Neil Andrew (10.11.1998–31.8.2004) (230) and David Hawker (16.11.2004–17.10.2007) (223).

However, when the number of sitting days presided over by each Speaker is taken into account, members were disciplined at a greater rate under Peter Slipper’s speakership than any other. Under his speakership an average of 2.13 disciplinary actions were taken on each day.[59] He was followed by Anna Burke’s speakership when an average of 1.5 disciplinary actions were taken each day, David Hawker (1.14) and Harry Jenkins (1.04). Details of the disciplinary actions taken under each Speakership are listed in Table 14. The records of other occupiers of the Chair are listed in Appendix G.

The Speaker is almost always chosen from the ranks of Government members and as such has always been open to the charge of bias from the Opposition. The above figures may tend to support this charge of bias until one takes into account the political roles of the Opposition: to hold the Government to account, and to obtain political advantage with a view to taking Government at the next election, if not before. Consequently, Opposition members (of whatever party) may be less orderly than government members and so actions taken by the Speaker are not necessarily biased.

Table 14: Disciplinary actions by Speakership[60]

Speaker	Disciplinary actions per Speaker	Disciplinary actions per Speakership	Sitting Days per Speakership	Disciplinary actions per sitting days
Holder, Sir Frederick 9.5.1901–23.7.1909	2	2	791#	.003
Salmon, Charles 28.7.1909–19.2.1910	0	0	74	.000
McDonald, Charles 1.7.1910–23.4.1913	6	6	249	.024
Johnson, William 9.7.1913–30.7.1914	5	5	108	.046
McDonald, Charles 8.10.1914–26.3.1917	3	4	147	.027
Johnson, William 14.6.1917–6.11.1922	7	18	433	.042
Watt, William 28.2.1923–3.10.1925	2	6	171	.035
Groom, Sir Littleton 13.1.1926–16.9.1929	2	7	245	.029
Makin, Norman 20.11.1929–27.11.1931	14	25	206	.121
Mackay, George 17.2.1932–7.8.1934	5	14	154	.091
Bell, George 23.10.1934–27.8.1940	14	23	323	.071
Nairn, Walter 20.11.1940–21.6.1943	0	4	140	.029
Rosevear, John 22.6.1943–31.10.1949	11	25	490	.051
Cameron, Archie 22.2.1950–9.8.1956	28	42	424	.099
McLeay, John 29.8.1956–31.10.1966	28	48	655	.073
Aston, William 21.2.1967–2.11.1972	14	18	387	.047
Cope, James 27.2.1973–27.2.1975	19	28	155*	.181
Scholes, Gordon 27.2.1975–11.11.1975	2	6	61**	.098
Snedden, Billy 17.2.1976–4.2.1983	13	24	456	.053
Jenkins, Dr Henry 21.4.1983–20.12.1985	14	16	167	.096
Child, Joan 11.2.1986–28.8.1989	12	20	251	.080
McLeay, Leo 29.8.1989–8.2.1993	16	22	191	.115
Martin, Stephen 4.5.1993–29.1.1996	24	27	184	.147
Halverson, Robert 30.4.1996–3.3.1998	51	55	139	.396
Sinclair, Ian 4.3.1998–31.8.1998	16	18	37	.486
Andrew, Neil 10.11.1998–31.8.2004	192	220	406	.542
Hawker, David 16.11.2004–17.10.2007	188	223	196	1.138
Jenkins, Harry 12.2.2008–24.11.2011	252	265	256	1.035
Slipper, Peter 24.11.2011–9.10.2012	67	115	54	2.130
Burke, Anna 9.10.2012–12.8.2013	66	66	44	1.500
Total	1,073	1,352	7,611	.178

 

#Does not include the sitting day after Speaker Holder died

*Includes the two Joint Sitting days (6–7 August 1974) Cope presided over and the day (27 February 1975) he resigned.

**Includes the day Scholes became Speaker (27 February 1975) which was the same day Speaker Cope resigned [i.e. double counting]

Extent and degree of disorderly conduct

It is difficult to measure the degree and extent of disorderly behaviour in Parliament as there is no one measure of disorderliness and each has its limitations. Measures such as the number of interjections and the number of warnings given by the Speaker could be used as indicators. However, not all interjections are recorded and not all Speakers have a policy of warning members before taking disciplinary action. Furthermore, different Speakers may have different tolerance levels for disorder and may take more or less actions than other Speakers to control it. Nevertheless, some measures can give an idea as to the degree of disorderly behaviour and its extent.

This section looks at how disorderly behaviour has changed over time, its frequency and its concentration. It assesses the validity of the proposition that proceedings in the House of Representatives have become more disorderly over time, using these measures.

Disorderly conduct by Parliament

Judging by the number of members named, it appears that in the first three Parliaments from 1901 to 1909, members were very well behaved or the Speaker was reluctant to use the sanctions available to him. Even when early Speakers named members, they gave them many opportunities to apologise for their transgressions in order to avoid having to suspend them.

It was not until the third Parliament (1907 to 1909) that two members were named by Speaker Frederick Holder. They were John Wilson (FT, Corangamite, Vic.) on 1 October 1908 and William Hughes (ALP, West Sydney, NSW) on 22 September 1909. Wilson had been named for persistently interjecting after two or three warnings by the Speaker but avoided suspension after he apologised. Hughes had refused to withdraw an unparliamentary expression, ‘contemptible’, but was saved by the intervention of Prime Minister Alfred Deakin (PROT, Ballaarat, Vic.) and his own explanation.

It was not until 18 August 1910 in the fourth Parliament (1910 to 1912) that the first member, James Catts (ALP, Cook, NSW), was named and suspended, for disregarding the authority of the Chair. He had called something Elliott Johnson (LP, Lang, NSW) had said `a dirty, skunky thing to say’ and had gone over to the other side of the House and said `you dirty skunks’. He was suspended for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Over the next two decades from the fourth to the eleventh Parliaments (1910 to 1929) namings and suspensions increased to about six per parliament. The fifth Parliament (1913 to 1914) included an occasion when the House imposed its own sanction by resolution on a matter of privilege. On 11 November 1913 David McGrath was suspended for ‘the remainder of the session’ for ‘reflecting on the Chair’ (see circumstances outlined earlier).

There was a large increase in namings during the 12th Parliament (1929 to 1931) when 25 members were named. However, the high degree of tolerance shown by Speakers continued as only three members were suspended under the Speakership of Norman Makin. The first ministers to be named occurred during this parliament. On 24 April 1931 Attorney-General Frank Brennan continued speaking as the Speaker called for order and was named. However, Prime Minister James Scullin, appealed to him to apologise, which he did, and the matter was not proceeded with.[61]

Later in the year on 18 September 1931 Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister Ted Theodore was named for ‘wilful disobedience of the Chair’ and only saved from suspension when the Prime Minister successfully appealed to him to withdraw and apologise (see details earlier).[62]

Disciplinary actions averaged 11 per Parliament for the 13th to 18th Parliaments (1932 to 1949). The 15th Parliament (1937 to 1940) contained the first, and rare occasion, when a member is named but the motion to suspend is defeated (negatived). This occurred on 14 October 1938 when Rowland James was named for disregarding the authority of the Chair (see details earlier).

For the next 25 years covering the 19th to the 28th Parliaments (1950 to 1974) the average number of disciplinary actions per parliament (12.2) remained at about the same level as the previous 18 years. Although two and three members had previously been named and suspended on the one day, it was not until 27 April 1955 during the 21st Parliament (1954 to 1955) that four members were named on one day (another was named but the matter was not proceeded with).

During the 29th Parliament (1974 to 1975) 20 members were named and/or suspended, the highest number since the 12th Parliament (1929 to 1931). On 27 February 1975 the second occasion occurred when a member was named but the motion to suspend was negatived. This involved the Minister for Labor and Immigration in the Whitlam Labor government, Clyde Cameron (ALP, Hindmarsh, SA), who was named by Speaker Jim Cope for ‘refusing to apologise after disregarding the authority of the Chair’ (see earlier section for details). When the motion was defeated the Speaker resigned, the first and only time this has happened.

Over the next seven Parliaments (30th to 36th; 1976 to 1992) the average number of disciplinary actions dropped slightly to 11.7 per parliament. On 12 February 1991 (36th Parliament) the proceedings of the House were allowed to be televised (see earlier section for details).

Disciplinary actions increased markedly from the 37th to the 43rd Parliament (1993 to 2013) due to the introduction of the ‘sin bin’ sanction for disorderly conduct in 1994. Wilson Tuckey became the first member to be ‘sin binned’ on 24 February 1994 when he was ordered from the Chamber for one hour for ‘not resuming his seat when directed to do so’. He had interjected three times during a speech by Prime Minister Paul Keating.[63]

The greatest number of members ‘sin binned’ on a single day (11) occurred on 2 November 2005. Speaker David Hawker ordered out eight Labor members during Question Time and Deputy Speaker Ian Causley ordered out three Labor members during a Matter of Public Importance (MPI) debate. The greatest number of ‘sin binnings’ from Question Time occurred on 21 March 2012 when nine members were ‘sin binned’.

The most disorderly sitting fortnight was from 13 to 22 March 2012. There were 39 instances of disorder: 17 during the first week (13 to 15 March) and 22 in the second week (19 to 22 March). The next most disorderly sitting fortnight occurred in the 41st Parliament when there were 24 instances over the first fortnight in November 2005.

In all, from 1901 to the end of the 43rd Parliament in August 2013, there have been 1,352 instances of disciplinary action: 135 (10%) were named but not suspended; 1,217 (90%) were actually suspended or ‘sin binned’.

Table 15: Disciplinary actions by Parliament

Parliament Number	Named but not proceeded or negatived	Suspended	Sin binned	Total
1    9.5.1901–11.11.1903	0	0	0	0
2    2.3.1904–26.10.1906	0	0	0	0
3    20.2.1907–18.1.1910	2	0	0	2
4    1.7.1910–8.1.1913	4	2	0	6
5    9.7.1913–27.6.1914	1	4	0	5
6    8.10.1914–20.3.1917	0	4	0	4
7    14.6.1917–28.10.1919	2	8	0	10
8    26.2.1920–18.10.1922	0	8	0	8
9    28.2.1923–28.9.1925	3	3	0	6
10  13.1.1926–22.9.1928	2	1	0	3
11  6.2.1929–12.9.1929	3	1	0	4
12  20.11.1929–26.11.1931	22	3	0	25
13  17.2.1932–2.8.1934	7	7	0	14
14  23.10.1934–15.9.1937	3	8	0	11
15  30.11.1937–22.8.1940	6 (includes one negatived)	5	0	11
16  20.11.1940–1.7.1943	5	0	0	5
17  23.9.1943–9.8.1946	2	9	0	11
18  6.11.1946–27.10.1949	1	13	0	14
19  22.2.1950–16.3.1951	4	8	0	12
20  12.6.1951–14.4.1954	1	11	0	12
21  4.8.1954–28.10.1955	3	13	0	16
22  15.2.1956–2.10.1958	0	10	0	10
23  17.2.1959–27.10.1961	8	10	0	18
24  20.2.1962–30.10.1963	5	3	0	8
25  25.2.1964–28.10.1966	3	11	0	14
26  21.2.1967–26.9.1969	1	5	0	6
27  25.11.1969–31.10.1972	5	7	0	12
28  27.2.1973–10.4.1974	2	12	0	14
29  9.7.1974–11.11.1975	12 (includes one negatived)	8	0	20
30  17.2.1976–9.11.1977	3	2	0	5
31  21.2.1978–18.9.1980	5	6	0	11
32  25.11.1980–16.12.1982	3	5	0	8
33  21.4.1983–24.10.1984	6	7	0	13
34  21.2.1985–5.6.1987	2	14	0	16
35  14.9.1987–22.12.1989	0	10	0	10
36  8.5.1990–18.12.1992	6	13	0	19
37  4.5.1993–30.11.1995	0	11	16	27
38  30.4.1996–15.7.1998	0	15	58	73
39  10.11.1998–8.10.2001	2	11	110	123
40  12.2.2002–30.8.2004	0	16	81	97
41  16.11.2004–15.10.2007	0	8	215	223
42  12.2.2008–19.7.2010	0	14	154	168
43  28.9.2010–12.8.2013	1 (includes one negatived)	4	273	278
Total	135 (includes three negatived)	310	907	1,352

 

Frequency with which disciplinary actions were taken against members

Of the 7,611 sitting days from 1901 to the end of the 43rd Parliament, members were disciplined for disorderly conduct on 824 (10.8%) of them. On 552 (67.0%) of those days only one member was disciplined. On 272 (33.0%) of those days two or more members were disciplined each day. On 92.6% of the days no more than three members were disciplined.

However, over the last 24 years from 1990 to 2013 the percentage of sitting weeks during which at least one member has been disciplined has increased. Until 1995 the rate was around about 23% with the exception of 1992 when it rose to nearly 53%. So, a member was disciplined about once every four weeks. Then it rose to about once every two weeks in 1995 and 1996. Since then (1997–2013) it has never fallen below 72% (about three weeks in every four). From 2005 onwards the rate has fairly consistently been in the 80% to 90% range, reaching 100% in 2012 and 2013. So, in the last two years at least one member has been disciplined every week. See Table 16 for details.

Table 16: Number and percentage of sitting weeks in which members were disciplined 1990–2013

Year	No. of sitting weeks[64]	No. (%) of weeks in which members were disciplined
1990	12	3 (25.0)
1991	21	3 (14.3)
1992	19	10 (52.6)
1993	14	4 (28.6)
1994	18	5 (27.8)
1995	18	9 (50.0)
1996	16	9 (56.3)
1997	20	18 (90.0)
1998	15	11 (73.3)
1999	19	16 (84.2)
2000	19	15 (78.9)
2001	15	13 (86.7)
2002	18	13 (72.2)
2003	20	15 (75.0)
2004	16	12 (75.0)
2005	18	17 (94.4)
2006	18	15 (83.3)
2007	14	13 (92.9)
2008	18	16 (88.9)
2009	19	15 (78.9)
2010	16	15 (93.8)
2011	18	16 (88.9)
2012	17	17 (100.0)
2013 (to August)	9	9 (100.0)
Total	407	289 (71.0)

Concentration of disorderly conduct

Disorderly conduct has not only increased over the years and become more regular, it has become more concentrated as evidenced by the increase in the number of days when four or more members have been disciplined. Four or more members have been disciplined on a single day on 61 occasions.  Of these, 85.2% have occurred in the last three Parliaments. The Speakership of Peter Slipper (24.11.2011–9.10.2012) was the most prolific. Four or more members were disciplined 13 times or 31.7% of the days upon which disciplinary action was taken.[65] Following Peter Slipper was Speaker Anna Burke (9.10.2012–12.8.2013) who disciplined four or more members on 21.4% of the days she took disciplinary action. Only Speaker David Hawker (16.11.2004–17.10.2007) has come close to Slipper and Burke. During the 41st Parliament Hawker disciplined four or more members on 18.5% of the days on which he disciplined any member.  See Table 17 for details.

Table 17: Number of days on which four or more MPs were disciplined by Speakership

Speakership	No. of days on which 4+ MPs were disciplined	No. of days when any MP was disciplined	% of days when 4+ MPs were disciplined	No. of sitting days under each Speakership	% of sitting days when 4+ MPs were disciplined
Cameron, Archie 22.2.1950–9.8.1956	1	34	2.9	424	0.2
Martin, Stephen 4.5.1993–29.1.1996	1	23	4.3	184	0.5
Andrew, Neil 10.11.1998–31.8.2004	7	144	4.9	406	1.7
Hawker, David 16.11.2004–17.10.2007	17	92	18.5	196	8.7
Jenkins, Harry 12.2.2008–24.11.2011	16	134	11.9	256	6.3
Slipper, Peter 24.11.2011–9.10.2012	13	41	31.7	54	24.1
Burke, Anna 9.10.2012–12.8.13	6	28	21.4	44	13.6
	61	496

 

By the broad measures of disorderly conduct used in this paper: the number of disciplinary actions, frequency of disciplinary actions and concentration of disorderly conduct, it can be seen that disorderly behaviour has indeed increased over time.

Most Disorderly Parliament

After the 2010 election and before the Independents had agreed to support Julia Gillard in the formation of a Labor Government for the 43rd Parliament, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said:

I think we can have a kinder, gentler polity. I think we can be a more collegial polity than we’ve been. I think that the spirit of Parliament has been needlessly confrontational, especially over the last three years …[66]

So, how ‘kinder, gentler’ was the 43rd Parliament compared to other recent Parliaments? Table 18 outlines a number of measures of disorderly behaviour during each Parliament from the 38th to the 43rd. The 38th Parliament was selected as the starting point as this was the first full Parliament after the ‘sin bin’ sanction was introduced. It was also the first of the Howard Coalition Governments and so enables a comparison with the Rudd/Gillard Labor Governments.

Table 18 shows that the number of disciplinary actions taken increased quite markedly from 73 during the 38th Parliament to 278 during the 43rd Parliament.

The percentage of sitting weeks during which at least one member received disciplinary action increased from 74.5% in the 38th Parliament to 95.9% during the 43rd Parliament.

If only one member requires disciplining on a sitting day, this may not necessarily indicate a particularly disorderly Parliament, even if one member required disciplining on most days. The disciplining of four or more members on a day would suggest a higher level of disorder. Comparing the percentage of all disciplinary days where four or more disciplinary actions are required gives an indication of the concentration of the disorderliness. On this measure, the House of Representatives during the 43rd Parliament would be considered more disorderly than the previous five Parliaments. On 23.1% of all days when disciplinary action occurred, four or more members were disciplined compared to none in the 38th Parliament and 9.3% and 18.5% in the 42nd and 41st Parliaments respectively.

Each of the six Parliaments had between 148 and 150 members. The number of different members involved in disorderly behaviour is a measure of how widespread such behaviour is. In the 38th Parliament only 34 (23%) different members were involved in disorderly conduct but this had risen to 61 (40.7%) in the 43rd Parliament.

So, on all measures the 42nd and the 43rd Parliaments have been the most disorderly in recent years.

On each of the above measures, there was more disorderly behaviour during the Rudd/Gillard years than during the Howard years. An average of 223 disciplinary actions in the House of Representatives per Parliament were taken during the Rudd/Gillard years compared to 129 such actions during the Howard years. There was a larger percentage of sitting weeks during the Rudd/Gillard terms (2008–August 2013) in which disciplinary action was taken (91.6% to 80.1%). The Rudd/Gillard Parliaments had a greater percentage of days when four or more members were disciplined (average of 16.2%) compared with the Howard Governments (average of 7.0%). Finally, a greater number of individual members were considered disorderly in the Rudd/Gillard years (51.5 or 34.3%) than during the Howard years (42.5 or 28.5%).

Table 18: Measures of disorderly behaviour in the House of Representatives by Parliament

Parliament	Number of disciplinary actions	Percentage of sitting weeks in which a member was disciplined	Number  (%) of all disciplinary days where 4+ members were disciplined	Number (%) of different members disciplined
38th (30.4.1996–15.7.1998)	73	74.5%	0 (0.0%)	34 (23%)
39th (10.11.1998–8.10.2001)	123	82.5%	5 (6.6%)	43 (29.1%)
40th (12.2.2002–30.8.2004)	97	74.5%	2 (2.9%)	39 (26%)
41st (16.11.2004–15.10.2007)	223	88.7%	17 (18.5%)	54 (36%)
Average per Howard Governments	129	80.1%	6 (7.0%)	42.5 (28.5%)
42nd (12.2.2008–19.7.2010)	168	87.2%	8 (9.3%)	42 (28%)
43rd (28.9.2010–12.8.2013)	278	95.9%	27 (23.1%)	61 (40.7%)
Average per Rudd/Gillard Governments	223	91.6%	17.5 (16.2%)	51.5 (34.3%)

 

The 43rd Parliament was the most disorderly. It had the highest number of disciplinary actions (278), the highest percentage of sitting weeks in which a member was disciplined (95.9%), the highest number and percentage of days when four or more members were disciplined (27, 23.1%), and the highest number and percentage of different members disciplined (61, 40.7%). So, although a ‘kinder, gentler’ parliament may have been possible, on the measures outlined above, it did not happen. It should be noted that this was an unusual parliament, the first hung parliament in 40 years.

Conclusion

The reasons for disorderly behaviour are complex and beyond the scope of this paper. Some of the factors may include Members’ attitudes towards disorderly behaviour, the balance of the parties within Parliament (e.g. a hung Parliament), the extent to which disorderly behaviour is spontaneous or forms part of political strategy, the role of the Speaker, the effect of the standing orders and parliamentary procedures, and the broader view of disorderly behaviour by general society.

This study of 1,352 instances of disorderly behaviour in the House of Representatives from 1901 to the end of the 43rd Parliament has identified a number of patterns and trends.

Of the 1,093 members who have served in the House of Representatives during this period, 300 (27.4%) have been named and/or suspended or ‘sin binned’ for disorderly behaviour in the Chamber.

Parliamentary proceedings were found to be most disorderly during Question Time and towards the latter part of each week. Opposition front benchers and parliamentary office holders received the most disciplinary actions and this remained the case whichever party was in Opposition.

From 1994 when the ‘sin bin’ sanction was introduced, making it easier for the Speaker to restore order to the House, the frequency, concentration and extent of disciplinary actions against disorderly members increased substantially. 

Whether such trends continue into the 44th Parliament with a different Speaker, members, governing party, and power balance is yet to be determined.

 

Appendix A: Standing Orders relating to the disciplining of Members of the House of Representatives

 

Appendix B: Removal from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms

 

Appendix C: Number (%) of disciplinary actions by weekday

 

Appendix D: Comparison of disciplinary actions taken in the first and second weeks of a sitting fortnight, 1990–2013

 

Appendix E: Members listed by the type and number of disciplinary actions taken against them

 

Appendix F: Proportion of disciplinary actions by state and territory compared to the proportion of seats

 

Appendix G: Disciplinary actions by Speakership

  

 

[65].    It should be noted that Anna Burke took the Chair when Speaker Slipper stepped aside from May to October 2012 although he was still officially The Speaker. During this period four of the occasions when four or more members were disciplined occurred whilst Anna Burke occupied the Chair.

 

[66].    T Abbott, Press conference, Canberra, 24 August 2010, accessed 7 September 2013.

 

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.