Updated 22 December 2016
PDF version [944KB]
Rob Lundie
Politics and Public
Administration Section
Executive summary
-
Of the 1,136 members who have served in the House of
Representatives from 1901 to the end of the 44th Parliament in May 2016, 329 (30
per cent) have been penalised 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 1,876 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.
-
The authority for the rules of conduct in the House of
Representatives is derived from the Australian Constitution. 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, while the number
of namings and suspensions has decreased. The sin bin 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. On
the other hand, being named and suspended is considered a much more serious
sanction, not only by the Parliament, but by the suspended members themselves.
-
Most disorderly behaviour occurs during Question
Time and in the parliamentary proceedings that often take place just
after Question Time. Disorderly behaviour tends to increase daily as the
sitting week progresses.
-
Frontbenchers and parliamentary office holders account for about
60 per cent of instances of disorderly behaviour. Opposition members
are sanctioned about 90 per cent 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. Nick Champion leads the list of
members most disciplined on 80 occasions followed by Graham Perrett on 58,
Anthony Albanese on 48 and Christopher Pyne on 45. Women members have accounted
for 15 per cent of disciplinary actions since they first entered
Parliament in 1943.
-
Members were disciplined most frequently under the speakership of
Bronwyn Bishop, followed by Peter Slipper, Tony Smith, Anna Burke, David Hawker
and Harry Jenkins.
-
On four measures of disorderly behaviour, the Rudd/Gillard
parliaments (42nd and 43rd, 2008–13) were more disorderly than the Howard
parliaments (38th to 41st, 1996–2007). The most disorderly Parliament was the
43rd. However, the 44th Parliament could be judged the most disorderly based on
the total number of members ejected from the Chamber and the proportion of days
when four or more members were ejected.
Contents
Executive
summary
Abbreviations
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
Penalties for disorderly conduct
Matter not proceeded with
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 or office of members who are
disciplined
Disciplinary actions against members
by each state and territory
External factors that may affect
disorderly behaviour
Televising of
parliament
Relocation of
parliament
Size of the House of
Representatives
Role of the Speaker
Disciplinary actions taken against
disorderly conduct in each parliament
Measures for assessing the extent and
degree of disorderly conduct
Number of disciplinary actions taken
Frequency of disciplinary actions
taken
Concentration of disciplinary actions
taken
Extent of disciplinary actions taken
Most disorderly parliament?
Conclusion
List of appendixes
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: Members listed alphabetically by the type and
number of disciplinary actions taken against them
Appendix D: Disciplinary actions by speakership
Appendix E: Types of disciplinary action by speakership
Appendix F: Comparison of disciplinary actions taken in the
first and second weeks of a sitting fortnight, 1990–2016
List of tables
Table
1: Instances where a matter was not proceeded with by reason, expressed as a
percentage of total instances
Table 2: Changes in periods of suspension following a
member being named and suspended
Table 3: Disciplinary actions per year since the
introduction of the sin bin in 1994
Table 4: Disciplinary actions before and after the
introduction of the sin bin in 1994
Table 5: Time periods spent out of the Chamber by
disciplinary action and as a percentage
Table 6: Reasons for disciplinary action by parliament
Table 7: Instances of disorder by type of parliamentary
proceeding from 1994 to 2016, expressed as a percentage of total instances
Table 8: Number of disciplinary actions by weekday,
1901–2016, also expressed as a percentage of total instances
Table 9: Type and number of disciplinary action taken
against members, with annual average
Table 10: Disciplinary actions by gender, by number and as
a percentage
Table 11: Disciplinary actions against government versus
non-government members, from Federation to end of the 44th Parliament
Table 12: Breakdown of disciplinary actions against members
from major parties, independents and minor parties, from Federation to end of
the 44th Parliament
Table 13: Disciplinary actions taken against members of
major parties in Opposition, 38th–44th parliaments, expressed as a percentage
of total instances
Table 14: Disciplinary actions against members by their
position, expressed as a percentage of total instances
Table 15: Number and proportion of disciplinary actions by
state and territory compared to the number and proportion of seats
Table 16: Disciplinary actions by speaker
Table 17: Disciplinary actions by parliament
Table 18: Number of sitting weeks in which members were
disciplined, 1990–2016, expressed as a percentage of total sitting weeks per
year
Table 19: Number of days on which four or more members were
disciplined, by speakership and expressed as a percentage
Table 20: Members repeatedly disciplined, who account for
half of all disciplinary actions by parliament
Table 21: Measures of disorderly behaviour in the House of
Representatives by parliament
Abbreviations
| AG |
Australian Greens |
| ALP |
Australian Labor Party |
| CP |
Country Party |
| CLP |
Country Liberal Party |
| FT |
Free Trade |
| IND |
Independent |
| LANG LAB |
Lang Labor Party |
| LP |
Liberal Party of Australia |
| NAT |
Nationalist Party |
| NP |
National Party |
| NPA |
National Party of Australia |
| PROT |
Protectionist Party |
| SO |
Standing Order |
| UAP |
United Australia Party |
Introduction
From 1901 to the end of the 44th
Parliament in May 2016, 329 different members and two senators have been
disorderly enough during proceedings of the House of Representatives as to
result in disciplinary action by the Speaker.[1]
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 1,876 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?[2]
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 Parliamentary Library.
All links in the footnotes have been checked prior to
publication.
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 derives from the Australian Constitution (‘the
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.[3]
Elements of these powers were codified by the enactment of the Parliamentary
Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) and the Parliamentary
Precincts Act 1988 (Cth). Section 50 of the Constitution
gives Parliament the authority to make its own rules for exercising and
upholding its powers, privileges and immunities.[4]
The rules are set down as the Standing Orders (SO).[5]
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 derives 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:
-
types of behaviour that are considered disorderly
-
actions that can be taken by the Speaker and the House to restore
order and
-
penalties that 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. The House would then vote 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 1950–63,
including once when the matter was not proceeded with. A similar power under
SO 306 was incorporated in the standing orders (through alterations in
August 1963, February 1994 and January 1998), and under SO 94(c) in
November 2004.[6]
The Speaker has not used this power since 1963, however.
From 1994, SO 94(a) gave the Speaker power 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
providing for 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 other offences—which come under the general
behaviours listed above—that are considered disorderly, such as: being insolent
towards the Speaker; imputing motives to the Speaker (suggesting the Speaker is
biased, for example); 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. Other factors taken into account by the
Speaker are whether 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. In fact, some speakers have indicated that they intended not to give
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
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 under 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.[8]
This power has never been invoked, but its pre-1963 predecessor—SO 303—was
used on 26 occasions. The wording of SO 303 was amended in 1963 to make it
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
Under SO 95, 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, if grave disorder occurs in the House.
On 12 occasions when such disorder has occurred, the Speaker has either suspended
the sitting or adjourned the House until the next sitting.[9]
On three occasions the House has been 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 as 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, Mr Considine 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 it 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 after expressing regret for his defiance and apologising.[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 named. The motion to suspend Mr
Hartsuyker had not been voted on.[12]
Disorder in
the Federation Chamber
The Main Committee, renamed
the Federation Chamber in February 2012, was established in 1994 to deal with
non-controversial legislation. 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 the same powers as the Speaker in the House to
name a member or order their withdrawal for one hour. Since its inception,
procedure has been that the Deputy Speaker reports the disorderly incident to
the House. It is the House that then 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 under SO 187. Having to suspend or adjourn
proceedings and report disorder to the House was considered likely to be more
disruptive than the transgression itself.[13]
To date, the Deputy Speaker has used this power once. On 13
February 2014, Deputy Speaker Natasha Griggs (CLP, Solomon, NT) ordered Ed
Husic (ALP, Chifley, NSW) from the Federation Chamber for 15 minutes for
‘continuing to interject after a warning had been given by the Chair’.[14]
He had interjected during a speech by Alex Hawke (LP, Mitchell, NSW) about the
location of an airport in Western Sydney.[15]
Wayne Swan (ALP, Lilley, Qld) was named and suspended on 8
February 2001 from the Main Committee for having ‘persisted in disorderly
behaviour by continuing to interject after being called to order, and thus
defied the chair’.[16]
Anthony Albanese (ALP, Grayndler, NSW) was named and
suspended on 21 March 2002 from the Main Committee 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’.[17]
Andrew Laming (LP, Bowman, Qld) was reported by Deputy
Speaker Sarah Henderson (LP, Corangamite, Vic.) to the House and then named and
suspended on 25 March 2015 from the Federation Chamber for having engaged in
‘serious and disorderly behaviour’ the previous day.[18]
On 24 March Mr Laming, while calling on cruise liner operators to use less
polluting fuel, brought two bottles of bunker fuel into the Federation Chamber.
He poured the contents of one of the bottles into his hand, which then spilled
onto the desk and floor.[19]
There was one other occasion when the Deputy Speaker, Ian Causley (NPA,
Page, NSW), felt the need to adjourn the Main Committee and report disorder to
the House. On 17 October 2002, Mark Latham (ALP, Werriwa, NSW) spoke on a
matter that the Deputy Speaker deemed sub judice, as it was evidence likely to
be submitted to a royal commission in New South Wales.[20] 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 it be dealt
with immediately. He was informed that the Main Committee did not have the
authority to decide such motions; only the House could do so. He further
refused to accept this ruling and the order to resume his seat.[21]
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’.[22]
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’.[23]
Penalties for disorderly conduct
The consequences of a member’s disorderly conduct are partly
at the Speaker’s discretion. They may exercise their judgment to estimate the
nature and severity of the transgression; whether to deliver a penalty; and
what penalty may be warranted. The Speaker may also consider 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, a direction to leave the Chamber immediately for one hour; or, if
particularly disruptive, a naming and suspension.
Matter not proceeded with
It was not unusual in the early days after Federation for
the Speaker to name a member but then for the matter to not proceed. In the
period to the end of 1912, eight members were named but only two were
subsequently suspended.
Of the 1,876 occasions when a member was named or ordered
from the Chamber, the sanction of being suspended was not proceeded with on 135
occasions. Of these 135, 103 were not proceeded with because the member
apologised, often at the behest of the Prime Minister or another senior member.
On 16 occasions, 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, 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, the motion to suspend proceeded
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’ and
instead ‘hurled further abusive epithets at the honourable member for
Macquarie’.[24]
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.[25]
-
On the second occasion (27 February 1975), the Minister for Labor
and Immigration (sic) 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’.[26]
Dr Jim Forbes (LP, Barker, SA) had accused him of telling ‘a monstrous lie’
during a personal explanation. Mr Cameron demanded the withdrawal of the
comment and became frustrated when Dr Forbes prevaricated. During the Speaker’s
attempt to get Dr Forbes to withdraw the comment unconditionally, Mr Cameron
began to interject and, when the Speaker called for order, Mr Cameron said, ‘Look,
I don’t give a damn what you say. I –’. The Speaker asked Mr Cameron to
apologise to the Chair a number of times, and then finally, ‘Is the Minister
going to apologise?’. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (ALP, Werriwa, NSW)
immediately responded, ‘No’.[27]
The Speaker then named Mr Cameron, and the motion to suspend was put by the
Opposition (though it is usually put by the Leader of the House). During the
ensuing division, the Prime Minister spoke to the Speaker but the Speaker
refused to divulge what was said. Government members refused to vote for Mr
Cameron’s suspension, the motion being defeated 59–55. The Speaker read the
result of the division and immediately announced his own resignation.[28]
This is the only instance when the Speaker has resigned as a result of a
suspension motion being defeated.
-
The third occasion was during 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.[29]
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.[30]
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.).[31]
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: Instances where a matter was not proceeded with
by reason, expressed as a percentage of total instances
| Reason for no suspension |
Number of occasions when matter not proceeded with |
Reason expressed as percentage of total instances |
| Member apologised or expressed regret |
103 |
76.3 |
| Member withdrew statement |
16 |
11.9 |
| Speaker decided to take no further action |
13 |
9.6 |
| Motion to suspend was negatived |
3 |
2.2 |
| Total |
135 |
100 |
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 criticised British policy in
Ireland. Mr Mahon was judged ‘guilty of conduct unfitting him to remain a
member’.[32]
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 Mr Mahon, another successful motion declared his seat vacant. He
contested the subsequent by-election but was defeated.[33] Since the
enactment of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 section 8, neither
House has had the power to expel a member from its membership.[34]
Naming and suspension
If a member is named and suspended then the current terms of
suspension according to Standing Order 94(d) are:
- on the first occasion, for the 24 hour period from the
time of suspension;
- on the second occasion during the same calendar year, for
the three consecutive sittings following the day of suspension; and
- 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 the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure reports in 1992 and 1993. The
first report recommended that the length of the penalties for second and third
suspensions be reduced and that suspensions should be for consecutive sitting
not calendar days.[35]
In tabling the report 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.[36]
Table 2: Changes in periods of suspension following a
member being named and suspended
| Dates |
First suspension |
Second suspension |
Third suspension |
| 6 June 1901 to 21 March 1950 |
Remainder of the day’s sitting |
1 week |
1 month |
| 21 March 1950 to 21 February 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 February 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 [sic], Vic.) was suspended for ‘the remainder of the session’ for ‘reflecting
on the Chair’.[37]
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’.[38]
He declined on several occasions to admit or deny the accuracy of the press
report containing the statement (not having read it).[39]
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.[40] Mr McGrath was
suspended on the motion:
That the honourable member for Ballaarat [sic] 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 Ballaraat [sic] on Sunday,
the 9th November, and reflecting on Mr Speaker, and apologises to the House.[41]
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 1913. 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’.[42]
-
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.[43]
-
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.[44]
Directed to withdraw from the
Chamber for one hour (‘sin bin’)
In 1992 the Standing Orders Governing
Disorder and Strangers report 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.[45] 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 (ALP,
Corio, Vic.):
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.[46]
This report was overtaken by the 1993
federal election and another report by the same committee was tabled on 28
October 1993.[47]
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.[48]
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’.[49]
The report was broadly accepted. Some
members in their speeches concentrated 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 bipartisan fashion.[50]
Others considered it was up to all members to make the Parliament work by
taking responsibility for adhering to the rules and procedures.[51]
Nevertheless,
there was some opposition to the change with Ian Sinclair (NPA, New England,
NSW) describing the sin bin idea as ‘gimmickry’.[52] 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.[53]
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.[54]
Effectiveness
of the sanctions on disorderly behaviour in maintaining order
The
penalties imposed for disorderly conduct have changed little 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 changes that had come into
operation. It reported 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.[55]
Certainly the use of the sin bin began
modestly, invoked in its first three years on five occasions in 1994; 11 in 1995
and nine in 1996. But in 1997 its use jumped to 33 occasions and has never
fallen below 20 since. Meanwhile, the number of instances when a member has
been named but the matter has not been proceeded with has reduced dramatically
since 1994 (to just three occasions). This would suggest that where speakers
had been reluctant to name and suspend, they have adopted the sin bin option
instead (see Table 3).
Table 3: Disciplinary actions per year
since the introduction of the sin bin in 1994
| Year |
Not proceeded with or negatived |
Named and 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 |
– |
– |
76 |
76 |
| 2014 |
– |
3 |
271(a) |
274 |
| 2015 |
– |
4 |
167 |
171 |
| 2016 to May |
– |
1 |
52 |
53 |
| Total |
3 |
82 |
1 423 |
1 508 |
(a) Includes
one ejection from the Federation Chamber for 15 minutes in 2014.
It is interesting
to note that the average number of naming and suspensions per year has
increased from 2.5 before 1994 to 3.6 after the sin bin was introduced
(see Table 4). This would 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 among Chairs to take action.
Table 4: Disciplinary actions before and
after the introduction of the sin bin in 1994
| Period |
Not
proceeded with or negatived |
Named and suspended |
Sin binned |
Total |
| Pre-1994 |
132 |
236 |
Not applicable |
368 |
| Average per
year (93 years) |
1.4 |
2.5 |
Not applicable |
4.0 |
| Post-1994 |
3 |
82 |
1 423(a) |
1 508 |
| Average per
year (23 years) |
0.01 |
3.6 |
61.8 |
65.6 |
| Total |
135 |
318 |
1 423 |
1 876 |
(a) Includes one ejection from the Federation Chamber for 15
minutes in 2014.
In the last four
years (2013–16) the average number of suspensions per year has fallen to below pre-1994
levels. On the other hand, the average number of sin bin sanctions during the
last four years has been much higher—at 143.5 instances per year—compared to
the overall post-1994 average (61.8 instances).
Anecdotal evidence and the number of
disciplinary actions taken against members would suggest an increase in
disorderly behaviour. 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 (LP, O’Connor, WA) 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.[56]
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’.[57]
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. On the other hand, being named and suspended is considered a much
more serious sanction, not only by the Parliament but by the suspended members
themselves.
So, whether or not SO 94(a) has had
any effect on controlling disorderly behaviour 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.[58]
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.[59]
Periods spent
out of the Chamber
In most cases of disorderly conduct members
have been required to spend from one hour to 24 hours outside of the Chamber (see
Table 5).
Table 5: Time periods spent out of the Chamber by disciplinary
action and as a percentage
| Time
Period |
Number
of disciplinary actions |
Disciplinary
action expressed as percentage of total instances |
| 1
hour (sin bin) |
1 422 |
75.8 |
| 15 minutes
from Federation Chamber |
1 |
0.1 |
| Remainder
of day’s sitting |
89 |
4.7 |
| 24
hours |
203 |
10.8 |
2
sitting days including today
(House resolution) |
1 |
0.1 |
Remainder
of day’s sitting and
next 3 sitting days |
4 |
0.2 |
| 1
week; 7 days; Remainder of day’s sitting and next 7 consecutive days |
18 |
1.0 |
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 |
7.0 |
| None
as motion to suspend negatived |
3 |
0.2 |
| Total |
1 876 |
100 |
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.[60]
On 18 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 four members have received this sanction—the most recent being Mark
Dreyfus (ALP, Isaacs, Vic.) during the 44th Parliament on 25 June 2015.[61]
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.
On 135 occasions, no penalty was imposed.
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.[62] 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 44th parliaments (1996 to
May 2016), 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 reasons 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 |
39th |
40th |
41st |
42nd |
43rd |
44th |
Total |
| Abusing the forms of the House(a) |
5 |
3 |
– |
1 |
27 |
23 |
29 |
88 |
| Defying or disregarding the authority of the Chair |
5 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
4 |
11 |
39 |
| Disorderly conduct |
5 |
7 |
4 |
36 |
53 |
29 |
36 |
170 |
| Interjecting |
48 |
108 |
80 |
177 |
78 |
222 |
448 |
1 161 |
| Reflecting on the Chair or a member |
– |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
– |
– |
9 |
| Refusing to resume their seat |
5 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
– |
6 |
| Refusing to withdraw a remark or expression |
3 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
– |
– |
– |
10 |
| Refusing to withdraw from the Chamber |
2 |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
| Total |
73 |
123 |
97 |
223 |
168 |
278 |
524 |
1 486 |
(a) An abuse may be, for example, raising frivolous points
of order.
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 the sin bin was
introduced in 1994, it has accounted for 83.4 per cent of all instances
of disorder (see Table 7). When other types of parliamentary proceedings that
occur during or just after Question Time (censure motions, personal
explanations, questions to the Speaker and matters of public importance) are factored
in, the degree of disorderly behaviour rises to 94.7 per cent of all
disorder during this period of the sitting day (usually scheduled around 2–4pm).
Table 7: Instances of disorder by type of parliamentary
proceeding from 1994 to 2016,
expressed as a percentage of total instances
| Parliamentary proceedings |
Number of instances of disorderly conduct |
Instances of disorderly conduct expressed as a
percentage |
| Question Time |
1 257 |
83.4 |
| Matters of Public Importance (MPI) |
56 |
3.7 |
| Censure Motions |
38 |
2.5 |
| Motions to suspend standing orders |
35 |
2.3 |
| Questions to the Speaker |
20 |
1.3 |
| Personal Explanations |
22 |
1.5 |
| Bills |
20 |
1.3 |
| Other |
60 |
4.0 |
| Total |
1 508 |
100 |
Disciplinary actions across
the sitting fortnight
Disciplinary actions occur more frequently on Tuesdays,
Wednesdays and Thursdays: 86.7 per cent of all sanctions occur on
these three weekdays (see Table 8). This finding is unsurprising given that
most sitting days occur on Tuesday through to Thursday, 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: 10.6 per cent of disciplinary
actions occur on Mondays; 22.7 per cent on Tuesdays; 28.8 per cent
on Wednesdays and 35.2 per cent 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.
Table 8:
Number of disciplinary actions by weekday, 1901–2016, also expressed as a
percentage
of total instances
| Weekday |
Not proceeded with or negatived |
Ordered from Federation Chamber |
Suspended |
Sin binned |
Total |
| Monday |
2 |
1.5% |
– |
– |
11 |
3.5% |
185 |
13.0% |
198 |
10.6% |
| Tuesday |
30 |
22% |
– |
– |
45 |
14.2% |
350 |
24.6% |
425 |
22.7% |
| Wednesday |
35 |
26.5% |
– |
– |
102 |
32.1% |
404 |
28.4% |
541 |
28.8% |
| Thursday |
52 |
38.6% |
1 |
100% |
129 |
40.6% |
479 |
33.7% |
661 |
35.2% |
| Friday |
15 |
10.6% |
– |
– |
31 |
9.7% |
4 |
0.3% |
50 |
2.7% |
| Saturday |
1 |
0.8% |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
0.1% |
| Total |
135 |
100% |
1 |
100% |
318 |
100% |
1 422 |
100% |
1 876 |
100% |
Disorderly behaviour resulting in
disciplinary action is no more frequent in the second week of a sitting
fortnight than in the first week. Over the past 27 years (1990–2016), the
number of disciplinary actions was higher in the second week in 50 per cent
of sitting fortnights. In 18 per cent of sitting fortnights, the
number of disciplinary actions was the same in each week; and in 32 per cent
of sitting fortnights the number was less in the second week. (See Appendix F
for details.)
Who receives disciplinary
action for disorderly behaviour?
Number and list of members
disciplined
Of the 1,136 members who have served in Parliament since
1901, 329 (30 per cent) 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 meeting of both Houses in the
House of Representatives chamber to hear an address by US President George W
Bush on 23 October 2003.
Table 9 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 C.
From Table 9 it can be seen that Nick Champion (ALP,
Wakefield, SA) is a clear leader over Graham Perrett (ALP, Moreton, Qld) and Anthony
Albanese (ALP, Grayndler, NSW) in terms of the total number of disciplinary
actions (80, 58 and 48 respectively). They are closely followed by Christopher
Pyne (LP, Sturt, SA) on 45.
Wilson Tuckey wrongly had the reputation for being named and
suspended the most number of times (14 times). In terms of suspensions
alone, Mr Tuckey comes after Eddie Ward (ALP, East Sydney, NSW) on 16
suspensions. Third in this category is William Wentworth (LP, Mackellar, NSW)
on 10 suspensions.
It should be noted: 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 Mr James 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 it is the newer members who feature prominently. Terri Butler
(ALP, Griffith, Qld), who only entered Parliament on 8 February 2014, was
ejected 15.6 times a year on average. Ms Butler is followed by Pat Conroy (ALP,
Charlton, NSW), who was elected at the 2013 federal election, on an average of
12.8 sin bins per year. Nick Champion is third on an average of 9.4 ejections
per year—having been disciplined 80 times over his eight-and-a-half years in
Parliament (2007–2016). Looking at only the 44th Parliament, Mr Champion—having
been ejected 70 times—was easily the most frequent transgressor at a rate of
26.3 sin bins per year.
Table 9: Type and number of disciplinary action taken
against members, with annual average
| Member and Party |
Not proceeded with |
Suspended |
Sin binned |
Total disciplinary
actions |
Service in years
months |
Average per year |
| Champion, Nick (ALP) |
– |
– |
80 |
80 |
8.6 |
9.4 |
| Perrett, Graham (ALP) |
– |
– |
58 |
58 |
8.6 |
6.8 |
| Albanese, Anthony (ALP) |
– |
4 |
44 |
48 |
20.2 |
2.4 |
| Pyne, Christopher (LP) |
– |
2 |
43 |
45 |
23.2 |
1.9 |
| Dreyfus, Mark (ALP) |
– |
3 |
36 |
39 |
8.6 |
4.6 |
| Butler, Terri (ALP) |
– |
– |
35 |
35 |
2.3 |
15.6 |
| Conroy, Pat (ALP) |
– |
– |
34 |
34 |
2.8 |
12.8 |
| Tuckey, Wilson (LP) |
1 |
14 |
16 |
31 |
29.2 |
1.1 |
| Irwin, Julia (ALP) |
– |
2 |
28 |
30 |
11.10 |
2.5 |
| Plibersek, Tanya (ALP) |
– |
– |
29 |
29 |
17.7 |
1.6 |
| Snowdon, Warren (ALP) |
– |
2 |
25 |
27 |
26.3 |
1.0 |
| O’Connor, Brendan (ALP) |
– |
– |
27 |
27 |
14.6 |
1.9 |
| Hockey, Joe (LP) |
– |
– |
27 |
27 |
19.8 |
1.4 |
| Tanner, Lindsay (ALP) |
– |
2 |
25 |
27 |
17.4 |
1.6 |
| Dutton, Peter (LP) |
– |
– |
26 |
26 |
14.6 |
1.8 |
| Chalmers, Jim (ALP) |
– |
1 |
23 |
24 |
2.8 |
9.0 |
| Fitzgibbon, Joel (ALP) |
– |
2 |
21 |
23 |
20.2 |
1.1 |
| Husic, Ed (ALP) |
– |
1 |
22(b) |
23 |
5.9 |
4.0 |
| Swan, Wayne (ALP) |
– |
6 |
17 |
23 |
20.7 |
1.1 |
| Laming, Andrew (LP) |
– |
2 |
19 |
21 |
11.7 |
1.8 |
| Crean, Simon (ALP) |
– |
3 |
17 |
20 |
23.4 |
0.9 |
| MacTiernan, Alannah (ALP) |
– |
– |
20 |
20 |
2.8 |
7.5 |
| O’Keefe, Neil (ALP) |
1 |
– |
18 |
19 |
16.10 |
1.1 |
| Ripoll, Bernie (ALP) |
– |
– |
18 |
18 |
17.7 |
1.0 |
| Jones, Ewen (LP) |
– |
– |
18 |
18 |
5.9 |
3.1 |
| King, Catherine (ALP) |
– |
– |
18 |
18 |
14.6 |
1.2 |
| Bishop, Bronwyn (LP) |
– |
– |
17 |
17 |
22.1 |
0.8 |
| Kerr, Duncan (ALP) |
– |
– |
17 |
17 |
23.0 |
0.7 |
| Ward, Eddie (ALP) |
1 |
16 |
– |
17 |
32.3 |
0.5 |
| Simpkins, Luke (LP) |
– |
– |
17 |
17 |
8.6 |
2.0 |
| Danby, Michael (ALP) |
– |
– |
16 |
16 |
17.7 |
0.9 |
| Owens, Julie (ALP) |
– |
– |
16 |
16 |
11.7 |
1.4 |
| Crosio, Janice (ALP) |
– |
– |
15 |
15 |
14.5 |
1.0 |
| Robert, Stuart (LP) |
– |
1 |
13 |
14 |
8.6 |
1.6 |
| Randall, Don (LP) |
– |
– |
14 |
14 |
16.3 |
0.9 |
| Morrison, Scott (LP) |
– |
1 |
13 |
14 |
8.6 |
1.6 |
| James, Rowland (ALP) |
11(a) |
3 |
– |
14 |
29.11 |
0.5 |
| Bevis, Arch (ALP) |
– |
2 |
11 |
13 |
20.5 |
0.6 |
| Briggs, Jamie (LP) |
– |
– |
13 |
13 |
7.8 |
1.7 |
| Ellis, Kate (ALP) |
– |
– |
13 |
13 |
11.7 |
1.1 |
| Chesters, Lisa (ALP) |
– |
– |
12 |
12 |
2.8 |
4.5 |
| Emerson, Craig (ALP) |
– |
1 |
11 |
12 |
14.10 |
0.8 |
| Hunt, Greg (LP) |
– |
– |
12 |
12 |
14.6 |
0.8 |
| Mirabella, Sophie (LP) |
– |
1 |
11 |
12 |
11.10 |
1.0 |
| Bowen, Chris (ALP) |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
11.7 |
0.9 |
| Watts, Tim (ALP) |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
2.8 |
4.1 |
| Latham, Mark (ALP) |
– |
2 |
9 |
11 |
11.0 |
1.0 |
| Wilkie, Kim (ALP) |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
9.2 |
1.2 |
| Christensen, George (NP) |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
5.9 |
1.9 |
| McLeay, Leo (ALP) |
– |
4 |
7 |
11 |
25.2 |
0.4 |
| O’Connor, Gavan (ALP) |
– |
2 |
9 |
11 |
14.8 |
0.8 |
| Adams, Dick (ALP) |
– |
2 |
9 |
11 |
20.6 |
0.5 |
| Wentworth, William (LP) |
– |
10 |
– |
10 |
27.11 |
0.4 |
| Ferguson, Martin (ALP) |
– |
3 |
7 |
10 |
17.5 |
0.6 |
| Haylen, Les (ALP) |
2 |
8 |
– |
10 |
20.3 |
0.5 |
| Zahra, Christian (ALP) |
– |
1 |
9 |
10 |
6.0 |
1.7 |
| Jensen, Dennis (LP) |
– |
1 |
9 |
10 |
11.7 |
0.9 |
| Marles, Richard (ALP) |
– |
– |
10 |
10 |
8.6 |
1.2 |
(a) Includes one negatived.
(b) Includes one ejection from the Federation Chamber
for 15 minutes.
Disciplinary actions by gender
Of the 1,876 disciplinary actions, 18.0 percent of
these occasions have been against 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
19.1 per cent.
The first woman to be named was Elaine Darling (ALP, Lilley,
Qld) on 12 May 1981, but her suspension was not proceeded with. Ms Darling had
sought to put a motion condemning the Government for its approach to Queensland’s
hospital system. The Government moved that she not be 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). Ms Darling 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.[63]
Table 10: Disciplinary actions by gender, by number
and as a percentage
| Gender |
Members disciplined |
Occasions when named but not
proceeded with or negatived |
Occasions when named and
suspended |
Occasions when sin binned |
Total disciplinary actions |
| Female |
48(a) |
14.6% |
1 |
0.7% |
8 |
2.5% |
328 |
23.0% |
337 |
18.0% |
| Male |
281(a) |
85.4% |
134 |
99.3% |
310 |
97.5% |
1 095(b) |
77.0% |
1 539 |
82.0% |
| Total |
329 |
100% |
135 |
100% |
318 |
100% |
1 423 |
100% |
1 876 |
100% |
(a) Includes
Senator Kerry Nettle and Senator Bob Brown.
(b) Includes one
ejection from the Federation Chamber for 15 minutes.
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.[64]
Later that year on 9 December 1996, 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’.[65]
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.[66]
The seven women members (including one senator) who have
been named and suspended from the House of Representatives are Julia Gillard
(ALP, Lalor, Vic.), Julia Irwin (ALP, Fowler, NSW) (suspended twice), De-Anne
Kelly (NPA, Dawson, Qld), Jackie Kelly (LP, Lindsay, NSW), Cheryl Kernot (ALP,
Dickson, Qld), Sophie Mirabella (LP, Indi, Vic.) and Senator Kerry Nettle (AG,
NSW).
Disciplinary actions against
parties in Government and Opposition
Non-government members, including
crossbenchers, account for 92.8 per cent of all instances of
disciplinary actions from 1901 to the end of the 44th Parliament in 2016—irrespective
of whether Labor or the Coalition has been in Opposition (see Table 11).
Table 11: Disciplinary actions against government
versus non-government members,
from Federation to end of the 44th Parliament
| Disciplinary action |
Government |
Non-government |
Total |
| Matter not proceeded with or
negatived |
18 |
13.3% |
117 |
86.7% |
135 |
100% |
| Suspended |
25 |
7.9% |
293 |
92.1% |
318 |
100% |
| Sin-binned |
93 |
6.5% |
1 330(a) |
93.5% |
1 423 |
100% |
| All actions |
136 |
7.2% |
1 740 |
92.8% |
1 876 |
100% |
(a) Includes one ejection for 15 minutes from the Federation
Chamber.
Table 12 shows that the major parties (with
by far the most number of members) account for 98.3 per cent of all
disciplinary actions; independents and minor parties make up the remainder.
Labor members have been disciplined on 1,225 occasions and Coalition members on
620 occasions since Federation: that is, Labor accounts for about twice as many
disciplinary actions. In percentage terms, the difference is 65.3 per cent
of disciplinary actions against Labor versus 33 per cent for the
Coalition. This is not surprising given that Labor has been in Opposition
federally for 66.8 per cent of the time, compared to the Coalition’s
33.2 per cent.[67]
Table 12: Breakdown of disciplinary actions against
members from major parties,
independents and minor parties, from Federation to end of the 44th Parliament
| Disciplinary
action |
Coalition |
Labor |
Totals:
major parties |
Independents/
minor parties |
Matter not
proceeded with
or negatived |
40 |
29.6% |
85 |
63.% |
125 |
92.6% |
10 |
7.4% |
| Suspended |
138 |
43.4% |
166 |
52.2% |
304 |
95.6% |
14 |
4.4% |
| Sin-binned |
442 |
31.1% |
974 |
68.4% |
1 416 |
99.5% |
7 |
0.5% |
| All
actions |
620 |
33.0% |
1 225 |
65.3% |
1 845 |
98.3% |
31 |
1.7% |
From the 38th to the 44th parliaments,
Opposition members accounted for 85–95 per cent of disciplinary actions.
Table 13 shows that the percentage was roughly 90 per cent for both
the Labor Opposition during the Howard years and the Coalition Opposition
during the Rudd/Gillard governments. However, during the Abbott/Turnbull
governments, instances against members in Opposition increased markedly to
97.1 per cent (see Table 13).
Table 13: Disciplinary
actions taken against members of major parties in Opposition,
38th–44th parliaments, expressed as a percentage of total instances
| Parliament |
Total disciplinary actions |
Disciplinary actions
against members in Opposition |
| 38th (April 1996 –
July 1998) |
73 |
62 |
84.9% |
| 39th (November 1998 –
October 2001) |
123 |
113 |
91.9% |
| 40th (February 2002 –
August 2004) |
97 |
83 |
85.6% |
| 41st (November 2004 –
October 2007) |
223 |
213 |
95.5% |
| Howard Government average(a) |
516 |
471 |
91.3% |
| 42nd (February 2008 – July 2010) |
168 |
151 |
89.9% |
| 43rd (September 2010 –
August 2013) |
278 |
248 |
89.2% |
| Rudd/Gillard Government
average(b) |
446 |
399 |
89.5% |
44th (November 2013 –
May 2016)
Abbott/Turnbull Government total(c) |
524 |
509 |
97.1% |
(a) Labor was in Opposition
for this term.
(b) The
Coalition was in Opposition for this term.
(c) Labor was
in Opposition for this term.
Position or
office of members who are disciplined
Of the 1,876 instances when members have been disciplined
719 were backbenchers; 30 were crossbenchers; 958 were frontbench or shadow
frontbench; and 169 were members performing their duties as parliamentary
office holders (for example, manager of opposition business or party whip).
There is some overlap as parliamentary office holders can also occupy
ministerial or shadow ministerial positions (see Table 14).
Table 14: Disciplinary actions against members by their
position, expressed as a percentage of total instances
| Member’s position |
Matter not proceeded with
or negatived |
Suspended |
Sin binned |
Total |
| Backbencher |
70 |
9.7% |
148 |
20.6% |
501 |
69.7% |
719 |
38.3% |
| Crossbencher |
10 |
33.3% |
14 |
46.7% |
6 |
20.0% |
30 |
1.6% |
| Shadow minister, minister |
47 |
4.9% |
130 |
13.6% |
781(a) |
81.6% |
958 |
51.1% |
| Parliamentary Office Holder |
8 |
4.7% |
26 |
15.4% |
135 |
79.9% |
169 |
9.0% |
| Total |
135 |
7.2% |
318 |
17.0% |
1 423 |
75.9% |
1 876 |
100% |
(a) Includes one ejected from the Federation Chamber for 15
minutes.
Table 14 shows that the executive on both sides of
Parliament (shadow ministers, ministers, parliamentary secretaries) account for
just over half of all disciplinary actions. Backbenchers account for about 38 per cent;
parliamentary office holders nine per cent; and crossbenchers less
than two per cent.
No prime minister has ever been named, suspended or 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’.[68]
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’.[69]
On 18 September 1931 Deputy Prime Minister Edward (Ted)
Theodore (ALP, Dalley, NSW) was named for ‘disregarding the authority of the
Chair’.[70]
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 substantiate the accusation, that it was ‘a lie’ and that ‘The Honourable
member is a dirty little scandal monger’.[71]
He was ordered to withdraw this last remark—which he did, but he also denied
the share ownership and explained that as Mr Parkhill would not accept his
assurance, he called Mr Parkhill a liar. The Speaker warned Mr Theodore that 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 (ALP, Yarra, Vic.) asked him to withdraw and apologise
to the Chair; to which Theodore replied, ‘Certainly I withdraw it.’ Mr Theodore
expressed regret, and the Speaker did not proceed with the matter.[72]
Four Leaders of the Opposition have been removed from the
Chamber:
-
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 a remark without qualification when asked
to do so. Mr Abbott was the first Leader of the Opposition to be sent from the
House under SO 94(a).[73]
-
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 that the Treasurer had uttered a ‘parliamentary lie’.[74]
-
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.[75]
-
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’.[76]
Later that day he sent a letter of apology to the Speaker and was permitted to
return to the Chamber.[77]
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.[78]
-
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.[79]
-
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 the Speaker agreed to do if Mr
Beazley apologised. This Mr Beazley did, and he was not required to leave the Chamber.[80]
Disciplinary actions against
members by each state and territory
Based on the current distribution of 150 seats among 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 per cent of the
seats and its members have received 35.8 per cent of the disciplinary
actions. See Table 15 for other state and territory figures. South Australia
has the greatest discrepancy between the proportion of seats held
(7.3 per cent) and the percentage of disciplinary actions incurred
(10.8 per cent). However, when Mr Champion’s 80 ejections are
discounted (the most for any MP by a wide margin), South Australia’s proportion
of disciplinary actions received is more proportionate to its percentage of
seats.
Table 15:
Number and proportion of disciplinary actions by state and territory compared
to the number and proportion of seats
| State
or territory |
Disciplinary
actions |
Seats |
| New
South Wales |
617 |
32.9% |
48 |
32% |
| Victoria |
466 |
24.8% |
37 |
24.6% |
| Queensland |
334 |
17.8% |
30 |
20% |
| South
Australia |
203 |
10.8% |
11 |
7.3% |
| Western
Australia |
150 |
8.0% |
15 |
10% |
| Tasmania |
60 |
3.2% |
5 |
3.3% |
| Australian
Capital Territory |
7 |
0.1% |
2 |
1.3% |
| Northern
Territory |
39 |
2.1% |
2 |
1.3% |
| Total |
1 876 |
100% |
150 |
100% |
External factors that may
affect disorderly behaviour
Televising of
parliament
From 12 February 1991 onwards, 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’.[81]
If the number of namings and suspensions is any guide to the
standard of behaviour in the Chamber, then this hope 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 or 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 effect the move might have had on disorderly behaviour compared to
other factors.
Size of the
House of Representatives
It may be expected that the more members in the Chamber, the
greater the likelihood of disorderly behaviour—but the numbers do not support
this expectation.
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 members.
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. Thus the likelihood of disorderly behaviour did not show a
correlative increase.
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
All members are responsible for the orderly conduct of the
proceedings of the House. However, the Speaker is 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).
In terms of the number of members disciplined under each
speakership, the highest number occurred under the speakership of Bronwyn
Bishop (November 2013 – August 2015: 402 actions) followed by Labor’s
Harry Jenkins (12.2.2008 – 24.11.2011: 265 actions), then the Liberal’s
Neil Andrew (10.11.1998 – 31.8.2004: 230 actions) and David Hawker (16.11.2004
– 17.10.2007: 223 actions).
When the number of sitting days presided over by each
Speaker is taken into account, members were disciplined with the greatest
frequency under Bronwyn Bishop’s speakership—at a rate of about three times per
sitting day. Disciplinary actions under Peter Slipper’s speakership (24.11.2011
– 9.10.2012) averaged 2.13 each day.[82]
Third comes Tony Smith (10.8.2015 – 9.5.2016: 44th Parliament only), with an
average of two disciplinary actions taken each day.[83]
Details of the disciplinary actions taken under each speakership are listed in
Table 16. Records for other occupiers of the Chair are listed in Appendix D.
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 appear 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, so
actions taken by the Speaker do not necessarily reflect bias.
Table 16: Disciplinary actions by speaker[84]
| Speaker and term of speakership |
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(a) |
0.003 |
| Salmon, Charles (28.7.1909 – 19.2.1910) |
0 |
0 |
74 |
0.000 |
| McDonald, Charles (1.7.1910 – 23.4.1913) |
6 |
6 |
249 |
0.024 |
| Johnson, William (9.7.1913 – 30.7.1914) |
5 |
5 |
108 |
0.046 |
| McDonald, Charles (8.10.1914 – 26.3.1917) |
3 |
4 |
147 |
0.027 |
| Johnson, William (14.6.1917 – 6.11.1922) |
7 |
18 |
433 |
0.042 |
| Watt, William (28.2.1923 – 3.10.1925) |
2 |
6 |
171 |
0.035 |
| Groom, Sir Littleton (13.1.1926 – 16.9.1929) |
2 |
7 |
245 |
0.029 |
| Makin, Norman (20.11.1929 – 27.11.1931) |
14 |
25 |
206 |
0.121 |
| Mackay, George (17.2.1932 – 7.8.1934) |
5 |
14 |
154 |
0.091 |
| Bell, George (23.10.1934 – 27.8.1940) |
14 |
23 |
323 |
0.071 |
| Nairn, Walter (20.11.1940 – 21.6.1943) |
0 |
4 |
140 |
0.029 |
| Rosevear, John (22.6.1943 – 31.10.1949) |
11 |
25 |
490 |
0.051 |
| Cameron, Archie (22.2.1950 – 9.8.1956) |
28 |
42 |
424 |
0.099 |
| McLeay, John (29.8.1956 – 31.10.1966) |
28 |
48 |
655 |
0.073 |
| Aston, William (21.2.1967 – 2.11.1972) |
14 |
18 |
387 |
0.047 |
| Cope, James (27.2.1973 – 27.2.1975) |
19 |
28 |
155(b) |
0.181 |
| Scholes, Gordon (27.2.1975 – 11.11.1975) |
2 |
6 |
61(c) |
0.098 |
| Snedden, Billy (17.2.1976 – 4.2.1983) |
13 |
24 |
456 |
0.053 |
| Jenkins, Dr Henry (21.4.1983 – 20.12.1985) |
14 |
16 |
167 |
0.096 |
| Child, Joan (11.2.1986 – 28.8.1989) |
12 |
20 |
251 |
0.080 |
| McLeay, Leo (29.8.1989 – 8.2.1993) |
16 |
22 |
191 |
0.115 |
| Martin, Stephen (4.5.1993 – 29.1.1996) |
24 |
27 |
184 |
0.147 |
| Halverson, Robert (30.4.1996 – 3.3.1998) |
51 |
55 |
139 |
0.396 |
| Sinclair, Ian (4.3.1998 – 31.8.1998) |
16 |
18 |
37 |
0.486 |
| Andrew, Neil (10.11.1998 – 31.8.2004) |
192 |
220 |
406 |
0.542 |
| 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 – 5.8.2013) |
66 |
66 |
44 |
1.500 |
| Bishop, Bronwyn (12.11.2013 – 2.8.2015) |
400 |
402 |
130 |
3.092 |
| Smith, Tony (10.8.2015 – 9.5.2016)(d) |
121 |
122 |
60 |
2.033 |
| Total
|
1 594 |
1 876 |
7 801 |
0.240 |
(a) Does not
include the sitting day after Holder died.
(b) Includes
the two joint sitting days that Cope presided over (6–7 August 1974) and the
day he resigned (27 February 1975).
(c) Includes the day Scholes became Speaker (27
February 1975) which was the same day Cope resigned (hence an instance of
double counting).
(d) Includes
Smith’s speakership during the 44th Parliament only.
Disciplinary actions taken
against disorderly conduct in each parliament
Judging by the number of members named, it appears that in
the first three parliaments (from 1901–09), members were either very well
behaved or the Speaker was reluctant to use available sanctions. 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 (1907–09) 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
[sic], Vic.) and his own explanation.
It was not until 18 August 1910 in the fourth Parliament
(1910–12) that the first member, James Catts (ALP, Cook, NSW), was named and
suspended for disregarding the authority of the Chair.[85] Catts 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’. Catts was
suspended for the remainder of the day’s sitting.[86]
Over the next two decades, from the fourth to the eleventh
parliaments (1910–29), namings and suspensions increased to about six per
parliament. The fifth Parliament (1913–14) 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’.[87] (See circumstances outlined on page 10.)
There was a large increase in namings during the 12th
Parliament (1929–31): 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.
Ministers were first named during this Parliament. On 24
April 1931, Attorney-General Frank Brennan (ALP, Batman, Vic.) continued
speaking as the Speaker called for order and was named. However, Prime Minister
James Scullin appealed to Brennan to apologise—which he did, and the matter was
not proceeded with.[88]
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.[89]
(See details on page 21.)
Disciplinary actions averaged 11 per parliament for the 13th
to 18th parliaments (1932–49). The 15th Parliament (1937–40) saw 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 on page 8.)
For the next 25 years, covering the 19th to the 28th
parliaments (1950–74), 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 been named and/or suspended on the one day,
it was not until 27 April 1955—during the 21st Parliament
(1954–55)—that the number climbed to four members named and suspended on one
day. (Another member was named on this date but the matter was not proceeded
with.)
During the 29th Parliament (1974–75), 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 [sic] 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 page 8 for details.) When
the motion was defeated the Speaker resigned, the first and only time this has
happened.
Over the next seven parliaments (30th–36th: 1976–92), 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 page 23 for details.)
Disciplinary actions increased markedly from the 37th to the
44th parliaments (1993–2016) 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 (ALP, Blaxland, NSW).[90]
The 44th Parliament was presided over by two Liberal
speakers: Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Smith. During Bishop’s term of 130 sitting
days, 402 members were ejected at a record rate of roughly three per day (see
Table 16 above). The greatest number of members ejected on a single day
occurred on Thursday 27 November 2014 when Ms Bishop sin binned 17
Labor members and one Liberal during Question Time. That surpassed the previous
highest number (12) recorded on each of the two days prior (25 and 26 November
2014).
These disciplinary actions also contributed to the most
disorderly fortnight (24 November – 4 December 2014) when 62 members were
ejected. The next most disorderly fortnight also occurred during 2014 (17–27
March) when 41 members were ejected.
During Tony Smith’s term of 60 sitting days, 122 members
were ejected at a rate of two per day (see Table 16 above). Mr Smith’s term in
the 44th Parliament spanned two Liberal prime ministers: Tony Abbott and
Malcolm Turnbull. There were 32 ejections over 13 sitting days when Abbott was
Prime Minister (a rate of 2.5 per sitting day); and 90 ejections over 47
sitting days when Turnbull was Prime Minister (a rate of 1.9 per sitting day).
In all, from 1901 to the end of the 44th Parliament in May
2016, there have been 1,876 instances of disciplinary action. One hundred and
thirty-five members were named but not suspended; whereas 1,741 were actually
suspended or sin binned.
Measures
for assessing the 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 measure 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 paper uses four measures of disorderly behaviour to
assess which parliament has been the most disorderly in recent years:
- the number of disciplinary actions taken
- the frequency of disciplinary actions taken: how often members
are disciplined
- the concentration of disciplinary actions taken: number of days
on which four or more members are disciplined and
-
the extent of disciplinary actions taken (or number of individual
members disciplined).
The proposition that proceedings in the House of
Representatives have become more disorderly is assessed using these four
measures.
Number of
disciplinary actions taken
By this measure one parliament may be deemed more disorderly
than another if there is a greater number of disciplinary actions taken against
disorderly conduct. Table 17 shows that the number of disciplinary actions
taken against disorderly conduct was fairly low for each parliament up until
the 38th Parliament, when the number was more than double that during the 37th
Parliament. The average number of disciplinary actions taken in each parliament
for the first 37 parliaments was 10. For the next seven parliaments from the 38th
(when the sin bin operated for the whole period) to the 44th, the average
rose markedly to 212 disciplinary actions. The total was highest in the 44th
Parliament, at 524 disciplinary actions.
Table 17:
Disciplinary actions by parliament
| Parliament number |
Named but not
proceeded or negatived |
Suspended |
Sin binned |
Total |
| 1 (9.5.1901
– 11.11.1903) |
– |
– |
– |
– |
| 2 (2.3.1904
– 26.10.1906) |
– |
– |
– |
– |
| 3 (20.2.1907
– 18.1.1910) |
2 |
– |
– |
2 |
| 4 (1.7.1910
– 8.1.1913) |
4 |
2 |
– |
6 |
| 5 (9.7.1913
– 27.6.1914) |
1 |
4 |
– |
5 |
| 6 (8.10.1914
– 20.3.1917) |
– |
4 |
– |
4 |
| 7 (14.6.1917
– 28.10.1919) |
2 |
8 |
– |
10 |
| 8 (26.2.1920
– 18.10.1922) |
– |
8 |
– |
8 |
| 9 (28.2.1923
– 28.9.1925) |
3 |
3 |
– |
6 |
| 10 (13.1.1926
– 22.9.1928) |
2 |
1 |
– |
3 |
| 11 (6.2.1929
– 12.9.1929) |
3 |
1 |
– |
4 |
| 12 (20.11.1929
– 26.11.1931) |
22 |
3 |
– |
25 |
| 13 (17.2.1932
– 2.8.1934) |
7 |
7 |
– |
14 |
| 14 (23.10.1934
– 15.9.1937) |
3 |
8 |
– |
11 |
| 15 (30.11.1937
– 22.8.1940) |
6 (includes one negatived) |
5 |
– |
11 |
| 16 (20.11.1940
– 1.7.1943) |
5 |
– |
– |
5 |
| 17 (23.9.1943
– 9.8.1946) |
2 |
9 |
– |
11 |
| 18 (6.11.1946
– 27.10.1949) |
1 |
13 |
– |
14 |
| 19 (22.2.1950
– 16.3.1951) |
4 |
8 |
– |
12 |
| 20 (12.6.1951
– 14.4.1954) |
1 |
11 |
– |
12 |
| 21 (4.8.1954
– 28.10.1955) |
3 |
13 |
– |
16 |
| 22 (15.2.1956
– 2.10.1958) |
– |
10 |
– |
10 |
| 23 (17.2.1959
– 27.10.1961) |
8 |
10 |
– |
18 |
| 24 (20.2.1962
– 30.10.1963) |
5 |
3 |
– |
8 |
| 25 (25.2.1964
– 28.10.1966) |
3 |
11 |
– |
14 |
| 26 (21.2.1967
– 26.9.1969) |
1 |
5 |
– |
6 |
| 27 (25.11.1969
– 31.10.1972) |
5 |
7 |
– |
12 |
| 28 (27.2.1973
– 10.4.1974) |
2 |
12 |
– |
14 |
| 29 (9.7.1974
– 11.11.1975) |
12 (includes one negatived) |
8 |
– |
20 |
| 30 (17.2.1976
– 9.11.1977) |
3 |
2 |
– |
5 |
| 31 (21.2.1978
– 18.9.1980) |
5 |
6 |
– |
11 |
| 32 (25.11.1980
– 16.12.1982) |
3 |
5 |
– |
8 |
| 33 (21.4.1983
– 24.10.1984) |
6 |
7 |
– |
13 |
| 34 (21.2.1985
– 5.6.1987) |
2 |
14 |
– |
16 |
| 35 (14.9.1987
– 22.12.1989) |
– |
10 |
– |
10 |
| 36 (8.5.1990
– 18.12.1992) |
6 |
13 |
– |
19 |
| 37 (4.5.1993
– 30.11.1995) |
– |
11 |
16 |
27 |
| 38 (30.4.1996
– 15.7.1998) |
– |
15 |
58 |
73 |
| 39 (10.11.1998
– 8.10.2001) |
2 |
11 |
110 |
123 |
| 40 (12.2.2002
– 30.8.2004) |
– |
16 |
81 |
97 |
| 41 (16.11.2004
– 15.10.2007) |
– |
8 |
215 |
223 |
| 42 (12.2.2008
– 19.7.2010) |
– |
14 |
154 |
168 |
| 43 (28.9.2010
– 5.8.2013) |
1 (includes one negatived) |
4 |
273 |
278 |
| 44 (12.11.2013 –
9.5.2016) |
– |
8 |
516(a) |
524 |
| Total |
135 (includes three negatived) |
318 |
1 423 |
1 876 |
(a) Includes one ejection from
the Federation Chamber for 15 minutes.
Frequency
of disciplinary actions taken
By this measure, a parliament may be deemed more disorderly
than another if disciplinary actions are taken more frequently. Members were
disciplined on 981 sitting days of the 7,801 sitting days from 1901 to the end
of the 44th Parliament.
However, over the last 27 years—from 1990 to 2016—there has
been a percentage increase in the number of sitting weeks during which at least
one member has been disciplined. Until 1995, the rate was around about
23 per cent—with the exception of 1992 when it rose to nearly
53 per cent. So excluding 1992, a member was disciplined about once
every four weeks between 1990 and 1995. The frequency rose to about once every
two weeks in 1995 and 1996.
Since then it has never fallen below 72 per cent
(about three weeks in every four). From 2005 onwards the rate has been in the range
of 80–90 per cent fairly consistently, reaching
100 per cent in 2012, 2015 and 2016.
In the last two years at least one member has been
disciplined every week. See Table 18 for details.
The percentage of sitting weeks during which at least one
member received disciplinary action increased from the 38th Parliament to the
43rd–44th parliaments (see Table 21). So, in these last two parliaments, there
were few weeks during which at least one member was not ejected from the House.
Table 18:
Number of sitting weeks in which members were disciplined, 1990–2016, expressed
as a percentage of total sitting weeks per year
| Year |
Number
of sitting weeks[91] |
Number
of sitting weeks in which members were disciplined |
Percentage
of sitting 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 |
13 |
12 |
92.3% |
| 2014 |
22 |
19 |
86.4% |
| 2015 |
19 |
19 |
100.0% |
| 2016
(to May) |
7 |
7 |
100.0% |
| Total |
459 |
337 |
73.4% |
Concentration
of disciplinary actions taken
By this measure, a parliament may be deemed more disorderly
than another if there are more days when a large number of members are ejected
from the chamber (that is, four or more members). If disciplinary action is
required on each and every sitting day but involves just one member, this may
not necessarily indicate a particularly disorderly parliament.
However, the disciplining of four or more members on a day
would suggest a higher level or concentration of disorder. Comparing the
percentage of all disciplinary days where four or more disciplinary actions are
taken gives an indication of the concentration of disorderliness.
Four or more members have been disciplined on a single day
on 61 occasions. Of these, 85.2 per cent have occurred in the last
three parliaments.
The speakership of Bronwyn Bishop (12.11.2013 – 2.8.2015)
saw the most instances of disciplinary action: four or more members were
disciplined on 39.1 per cent of the days upon which any disciplinary
action was taken. This was followed by Peter Slipper’s speakership (24.11.2011
– 9.10.2012), during which four or more members were disciplined on
31.7 per cent of the days upon which any disciplinary action was
taken.[92]
Speaker Slipper’s successor was Speaker Anna Burke (9.10.2012 – 12.8.2013), who
disciplined four or more members on 21.4 per cent of the days she
took any disciplinary action. See Table 19 for details.
During the 44th Parliament four or more members were
disciplined on 31.8 per cent of all days when disciplinary action
occurred. This compares to zero in the 38th Parliament and
23.1 per cent in the 43rd. See Table 21 for details.
Table 19:
Number of days on which four or more members were disciplined, by speakership
and expressed as a percentage
| Speakership |
Days on which 4+ members disciplined |
Days when any number of members disciplined |
Percentage of days on which 4+ members disciplined
over all days on which disciplinary action taken |
Total sitting days under speakership |
Percentage of sitting days on which 4+ members
disciplined over all sitting days under speakership |
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 – 5.8.2013) |
6 |
28 |
21.4% |
44 |
13.6% |
Bishop, Bronwyn
(12.11.2013 – 2.8.2015) |
43 |
110 |
39.1% |
130 |
33.1% |
| Smith, Tony (10.8.2015 – 9.5.2016) |
7 |
47 |
14.9% |
60 |
11.7% |
| Total |
111 |
653 |
— |
— |
— |
Extent of
disciplinary actions taken
By this measure, a parliament may be considered more
disorderly if a greater number of individual members are disciplined. Although
30 per cent of all members have been disciplined for disorderly
behaviour at least once during their parliamentary careers, most of the disorderly
conduct is carried out by a small percentage of members.
From 1901, just 36 of the 1,136 members who have served in
the House of Representatives accounted for 50 per cent of all
disciplinary actions. This figure is shown as a percentage in Table 20, which
also provides the statistics for the 38th–44th parliaments for comparison. Over
the past twenty years, between 4.7 and 7.3 per cent of all members have
accounted for 50 per cent of the disciplinary actions undertaken.
Table 20:
Members repeatedly disciplined, who account for half of all disciplinary
actions by parliament
| Parliament number |
Members repeatedly disciplined,
who account for half of all disciplinary actions in Parliament |
Those same members repeatedly disciplined as a percentage of all members
in Parliament |
38
(30.4.1996 – 15.7.1998) |
7 |
4.7% |
39
(10.11.1998 – 8.10.2001) |
10 |
6.7% |
40
(12.2.2002 – 30.8.2004) |
10 |
6.7% |
41
(16.11.2004 – 15.10.2007) |
9 |
6.0% |
42
(12.2.2008 – 19.7.2010) |
9 |
6.0% |
43
(28.9.2010 – 5.8.2013) |
11 |
7.3% |
44
(12.11.2013 – 9.5.2016) |
7 |
4.7% |
1–44
(9.5.1901 – 9.5.2016) |
36 |
3.2% |
Each of the seven parliaments in
Table 20 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 different members were involved in
disorderly conduct; but this rose to 61 members in the 43rd Parliament.
One-third of all members were disciplined during the 44th Parliament.
By the broad measures of disorderly conduct used in this
paper—the number of disciplinary actions, frequency of disciplinary actions,
the concentration of disorderly conduct, and the extent of disorderly conduct—disorderly
behaviour has indeed increased over time.
Most
disorderly parliament?
After the 2010 election, and
before the Independents had agreed to support Julia Gillard to form a minority
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 ...[93]
At the beginning of the 44th Parliament (November 2013),
Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss (NPA, Wide Bay,
Qld) said:
The last parliament was a challenging time
for the Speaker. The fact that there were three Speakers obviously did not
help. It was a parliament that I think many of us would like to put behind us.
The public expect our parliament to behave better in the future. They want a
parliament that is orderly and businesslike. I believe that you have the
skills, talent and ability to lead the parliament to aspire to achieve reform
and to make sure that the business of the parliament is conducted in an orderly
and businesslike manner in the future. It is, of course, up to us as members of
parliament to support you in that role so that we can have a parliament that
the people of Australia will respect for the 44th class.[94]
So, how ‘kinder, gentler’ was the 43rd Parliament compared
to other recent parliaments? And was the public’s desire for ‘a parliament that
is orderly’ fulfilled during the 44th Parliament?
Table 21 outlines the four measures of disorderly behaviour
during each parliament from the 38th to the 44th. 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 term for the Howard
Coalition Government, so enables a comparison with the Rudd/Gillard Labor
governments and the Abbott/Turnbull Coalition governments.
Table 21:
Measures of disorderly behaviour in the House of Representatives by parliament
| Measure |
Number |
Frequency |
Concentration |
Extent |
Average
or total
by government |
Parliament
number |
Number
of disciplinary actions |
Percentage
of sitting weeks in which a member was disciplined |
Days
when 4+ members were disciplined (number and percentage) |
Members
disciplined (number and percentage) |
| Howard
|
38
(30.4.1996 – 15.7.1998) |
73 |
74.5% |
0 |
0.0% |
34 |
23% |
| 39
(10.11.1998 – 8.10.2001) |
123 |
82.5% |
5 |
6.6% |
43 |
29.1% |
| 40
(12.2.2002 – 30.8.2004) |
97 |
74.5% |
2 |
2.9% |
39 |
26% |
| 41
(16.11.2004 – 15.10.2007) |
223 |
88.7% |
17 |
18.5% |
54 |
36% |
| Howard
average |
129 |
80.1% |
6 |
7.0% |
42.5 |
28.5% |
| Rudd/Gillard
|
42 (12.2.2008
– 19.7.2010) |
168 |
87.2% |
8 |
9.3% |
42 |
28% |
| 43
(28.9.2010 – 12.8.2013) |
278 |
95.9% |
27 |
23.1% |
61 |
40.7% |
| Rudd/Gillard
average |
223 |
91.6% |
17.5 |
16.2% |
51.5 |
34.3% |
| Abbott/Turnbull
|
44
(12.11.2013 – 9.5.2016) |
524 |
92.3%(a) |
50 |
31.8% |
50 |
33.3% |
| Abbott/Turnbull
total |
524 |
92.3%(a) |
50 |
31.8% |
50 |
33.3% |
(a) This includes three weeks
when Parliament sat for two, one and one days to be addressed by foreign heads
of state.
Prior to the 44th Parliament, on
all measures of disorderly behaviour, the 42nd and the 43rd Parliaments were
the most disorderly.
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. Disciplinary action was taken in a larger percentage of sitting
weeks during the Rudd/Gillard terms than during the Howard years
(91.6 per cent compared to 80.1 per cent). The Rudd/Gillard
parliaments had a greater percentage of days when four or more members were
disciplined (an average of 16.2 per cent) compared with the Howard Government
terms (an average of 7.0 per cent). Finally, a greater number of
individual members were considered disorderly in the Rudd/Gillard years than
during the Howard years.
As to whether the 44th Parliament was the most disorderly of
all recent parliaments, this depends on which of the four measures is used. In
terms of the number of disciplinary actions taken, the 44th Parliament was
clearly the most disorderly with 524 such actions—an increase of
88.5 per cent on the number taken in the previous Parliament.
The percentage of sitting weeks during which at least one
member was disciplined was slightly less during the 44th Parliament
(92.3 per cent) than during the 43rd Parliament
(95.9 per cent).
The concentration of disorderly behaviour—as measured by the
proportion of disciplinary days upon which four or more members were
ejected—was higher in the 44th Parliament (31.8 per cent) than during
the 43rd Parliament (23.1 per cent). Not only was behaviour more
disorderly on this measure during the 44th Parliament, but this Parliament
also recorded the highest number of members ejected on a single day: Speaker
Bishop ejected 18 members from Question Time on Thursday 27 November 2014.
The 44th Parliament was less disorderly than the 43rd
Parliament in the sense that disciplinary actions were taken against fewer
individual members (50 in the 44th compared to 61 in the 43rd).
Compared to the 43rd Parliament, the 44th Parliament was
more disorderly on two of the measures (number and concentration) but less
disorderly on the other two measures (frequency and extent). However, given
that there was a much bigger increase in disorderliness based on number and
concentration than there was a reduction based on frequency and extent, it
would be reasonable to conclude that the 44th Parliament was more disorderly
than the 43rd and earlier parliaments.
Conclusion
The calls for a more orderly, well-behaved parliament—a
‘kinder, gentler’ one that is ‘conducted in an orderly ... manner’—do not appear
to have been realised. However, disorderly behaviour is not widespread
throughout the parliamentary sitting day: since 1994, it has been
overwhelmingly confined to Question Time and other parliamentary proceedings
that occur during the period from 2–4 pm.
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 1,876 instances of disorderly behaviour in the
House of Representatives from 1901 to the end of the 44th Parliament has
identified a number of patterns and trends.
Of the 1,136 members who have served in the House of
Representatives during this period, 329 (or 30 per cent) 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 number, frequency and
concentration of disciplinary actions against disorderly members has increased.
Whether such trends continue throughout the 45th Parliament
remains to be seen.
Appendix A: Standing Orders relating to the disciplining
of Members of the House of Representatives
| SO No. |
Period of Operation and Text |
| |
From 6 June 1901 Chapter 7: Disorderly Conduct and Arrest |
| 55 |
Members ordered to attend If any member shall wilfully disobey any lawful order
of the House, he may be ordered to attend in his place to answer for his
conduct; and unless his explanation be deemed satisfactory, the House may
direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to take such Member into custody. |
| 56 |
Members not explaining or retracting Any Member having used objectionable words, and not
explaining or retracting the same, or offering apologies for the use thereof,
to the satisfaction of the House, shall be named by the Speaker, or otherwise
dealt with as the House may think fit; and any member called to order shall
sit down, unless permitted to explain. |
| 57 |
House will not permit Quarrels The House will interfere to prevent the prosecution of
any quarrel between Members arising out of debates or proceedings of the
House or of any Committee thereof. |
| 58 |
No Noise or Interruption allowed in Debate No member shall converse aloud or make any noise or
disturbance whilst any member is speaking, or whilst any Bill, Order, or
other matter is being read or opened; and in case of such noise and
disturbance being persisted in after the Speaker has called to order, the
Speaker shall call upon the Member making such disturbance by name, and such
Member will incur the displeasure and censure of the House. |
| 59 |
Order in Debate – Suspension of Members Whenever any member shall have been named by the
Speaker or by the Chairman of Committees, immediately after the commission of
the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of abusing the
Rules of the House, by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of
the House, or of disorderly conduct, or otherwise disregarding the authority
of the Chair, then, if the offence has been committed by such Member in the
House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on the motion being
made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed. “That such Member be
suspended from the service of the House”; and if the offence has been
committed in a Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall, on a motion
being made, put the same Question in a similar way, and, if the motion be
carried, shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report
the circumstance to the House; and the Speaker shall thereupon put the same
Question without amendment, adjournment or debate, as if the offence had been
committed in the House itself. If any member be suspended under this Order, his
suspension on the first occasion shall be for the remainder of that day’s
sitting; on the second occasion for one week; and on the third or any
subsequent occasion for one month. Nothing herein shall be taken to deprive the House of
the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages. |
| 227 |
The same rules for regulating the conduct of business
shall be observed in Committees as in the House itself, the Chairman of
Committees being invested with the same authority as the Speaker for the
preservation of order. Order shall be maintained in the House by the Speaker,
and in the Committee by the Chairman of Committees but disorder in a
Committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report. |
| |
|
| |
From 21 March 1950 Chapter XX Infringement of Order, and Arrest |
| 300 |
If any member has– ·
persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House;
or ·
been guilty of disorderly conduct; or ·
used objectionable words, which he has refused to withdraw; or ·
persistently and wilfully refused to conform to any Standing
Order; or ·
persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the
Chair- he may be named by the Speaker, or, if any of the
above-named offences has been committed by a Member in Committee, by the
Chairman. |
| 301 |
If the offence has been committed in the House, the
Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made, no
amendment, adjournment, or debate being allowed, “That such Member be
suspended from the service of the House”; and if the offence has been
committed in Committee, the Chairman shall forthwith suspend the proceedings
of the Committee and report the circumstances to the House; and the Speaker
shall thereupon, without a motion being necessary, put the same Question
without amendment, adjournment, or debate, as if the offence had been
committed in the House itself. |
| 302 |
If any Member be suspended under the foregoing Order,
his suspension on the first occasion shall be for twenty-four hours; on the
second occasion during the same year for seven days excluding the day of
suspension; and on the third or any subsequent occasion during the same year
for twenty-eight days excluding the day of suspension. Provided that any suspension
in a previous Session shall be disregarded. |
| 303 |
The Speaker or the Chairman shall order a Member whose
conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during
the remainder of the day’s sitting; and the Serjeant-at-Arms shall act on
such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of this Standing
Order. Any Member ordered to withdraw from the House pursuant to this
Standing Order shall not return during the same sitting except by permission
of the Speaker or Chairman. |
| 304 |
In the case of grave disorder arising in the House,
the Speaker may adjourn the House without Question put, or suspend any
sitting for a time to be named by him. |
| 305 |
If any member shall wilfully disobey any order of the
House, he may be ordered to attend to answer for his conduct; and, unless his
explanation be deemed satisfactory, the House may direct the Serjeant-at-Arms
to take such Member into custody. |
| |
|
| |
From 13 August 1963 Chapter XXI Disorder |
| 303 |
If any member has– ·
persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House;
or ·
been guilty of disorderly conduct; or ·
used objectionable words, which he has refused to withdraw; or ·
persistently and wilfully refused to conform to any Standing
Order; or ·
persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the
Chair- he may be named by the Speaker, or, if any of the
above-named offences has been committed by a Member in Committee, by the
Chairman. |
| 304 |
If the offence has been committed in the House, the
Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made, no
amendment, adjournment, or debate being allowed, “That such Member be
suspended from the service of the House”; and if the offence has been
committed in Committee, the Chairman shall forthwith suspend the proceedings
of the Committee and report the circumstances to the House; and the Speaker
shall forthwith, on a motion being made, put the same question, without
amendment, adjournment, or debate, as if the offence had been committed in
the House itself. |
| 305 |
If any Member be suspended under the foregoing order,
his suspension on the first occasion shall be for twenty-four hours; on the
second occasion during the same year for seven consecutive days excluding the
day of suspension; and on the third or any subsequent occasion during the
same year for twenty-eight consecutive days excluding the day of suspension.
For the purposes of this standing order, any suspension in a previous session
shall be disregarded, and “year” means a year commencing on the 1st
day of January and ending on the 31st day of December. |
| 306 |
When the conduct of a Member is of such a grossly
disorderly nature that the procedure provided in standing order 304 would be
inadequate to ensure the urgent protection of the dignity of the House, the
Speaker or the Chairman shall order the Member to withdraw immediately from
the Chamber and the Serjeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he receives
from the Chair in pursuance of this standing order. When the Member has
withdrawn, he shall forthwith be named by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the
case may be, and the proceedings shall then be as provided in standing orders
304 and 305, except that the question for the suspension of the Member shall
be put by the Speaker without a motion being necessary. If the question for the suspension of the Member is
resolved in the negative, he may forthwith return to the Chamber. |
| 307 |
A Member who has been suspended from the service of
the House shall be excluded from the Chamber and all galleries thereof. |
| 308 |
In the case of grave disorder arising in the House,
the Speaker may adjourn the House without question put, or suspend any
sitting for a time to be named by him. |
| 309 |
If any Member wilfully disobeys any order of the
House, he may be ordered to attend to answer for his conduct; and if he fails
to attend, or if his explanation be deemed unsatisfactory, the House may
direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to take such Member into custody. |
| |
|
| |
From 21 February 1994 Chapter XXI Disorder |
| 303 |
If any member has– ·
persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House;
or ·
been guilty of disorderly conduct; or ·
used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to
withdraw; or ·
persistently and wilfully refused to conform to any Standing
Order; or ·
persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the
Chair- the member may be named by the Speaker. |
| 304 |
Following the naming of a Member, the Speaker shall
forthwith put the question, on a motion being made, no amendment,
adjournment, or debate being allowed, “That the Member be suspended from the
service of the House”. |
| 304A |
If the Speaker considers the conduct of a Member is
disorderly, the Speaker, instead of calling on the provisions of standing
order 303 or 306, may order the Member to withdraw from the House for one
hour, which order shall not be open to debate or dissent. If a Member fails to leave the Chamber immediately
when ordered to do so by the Speaker, the Speaker may name the Member and
shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being moved, no amendment,
adjournment, or debate being allowed, “That the Member be suspended from the
service of the House”. |
| 305 |
If any member is named and suspended under standing
order 304 or 304A, the period of suspension on the first occasion shall be
for 24 hours; on the second occasion during the same calendar year for 3
consecutive sittings excluding the day of suspension; and on the third or any
subsequent occasion during the same calendar year for 7 consecutive sittings
excluding the day of suspension. For the purposes of this standing order, any
suspension in a previous session or any order to withdraw pursuant to
standing order 304A shall be disregarded. |
| 306 |
When the conduct of a Member is of such a grossly
disorderly nature that the procedure provided in standing order 304 or 304A
would be inadequate to ensure the urgent protection of the dignity of the
House, the Speaker shall order the Member to withdraw immediately from the Chamber
and the Serjeant-at-Arms shall act on any orders received from the Chair in
pursuance of this standing order. When the Member has withdrawn, he or she
shall forthwith be named by the Speaker and the proceedings shall then be as
provided in standing orders 304 and 305, except that the question for the
suspension of the Member shall be put by the Speaker without a motion being
necessary. If the question for the suspension of the Member is
resolved in the negative, he or she may forthwith return to the Chamber. |
| 307 |
A Member who has been suspended from the service of
the House or ordered by the Speaker to withdraw from the House for one hour
shall be excluded from the Chamber, all its galleries and any room where the
Main Committee is meeting. |
| 308 |
In the case of grave disorder arising in the House,
the Speaker may adjourn the House without question put, or suspend any
sitting for a time to be named by him. |
| 309 |
If any Member wilfully disobeys any order of the
House, he may be ordered to attend to answer for his conduct; and if he fails
to attend, or if his explanation be deemed unsatisfactory, the House may
direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to take such Member into custody. |
| 310 |
The Serjeant-at-Arms shall take or deliver into
custody any stranger who causes a disturbance in any part of the Chamber or
the room in which the Main Committee is meeting or any gallery of those
places, or who does not withdraw when strangers are directed to withdraw,
while the House or the Main Committee is sitting. |
| 311 |
When any member or other person has been taken into
the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, such arrest shall be reported to the
House by the Speaker without delay, and the House shall fix the time for such
Member or other person to be brought to the Bar, to be dealt with by the
House. |
| |
|
| |
From 1 January 1998 Chapter XXI |
| 303 |
If any member has– ·
persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House;
or ·
been guilty of disorderly conduct; or ·
used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to withdraw;
or ·
persistently and wilfully refused to conform to any Standing
Order; or ·
persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the
Chair- the member may be named by the Speaker. |
| 304 |
Following the naming of a Member, the Speaker shall
forthwith put the question, on a motion being made, no amendment,
adjournment, or debate being allowed, “That the Member be suspended from the
service of the House”. |
| 304A |
If the Speaker considers the conduct of a Member is
disorderly, the Speaker, instead of calling on the provisions of standing
order 303 or 306, may order the Member to withdraw from the House for one
hour, which order shall not be open to debate or dissent. If a Member fails to leave the Chamber immediately
when ordered to do so by the Speaker, the Speaker may name the Member and
shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being moved, no amendment,
adjournment, or debate being allowed, “That the Member be suspended from the
service of the House”. |
| 305 |
If any member is named and suspended under standing
order 304 or 304A, the period of suspension on the first occasion shall be
for 24 hours; on the second occasion during the same calendar year for three
consecutive days excluding the day of suspension; and on the third or any
subsequent occasion during the same calendar year for seven consecutive
sittings excluding the day of suspension. For the purposes of this standing
order, any suspension in a previous session or any order to withdraw pursuant
to standing order 304A shall be disregarded. |
| 306 |
When the conduct of a Member is of such a grossly
disorderly nature that the procedure provided in standing order 304 or 304A
would be inadequate to ensure the urgent protection of the dignity of the
House, the Speaker shall order the Member to withdraw immediately from the
Chamber and the Serjeant-at-Arms shall act on any orders received from the
Chair in pursuance of this standing order. When the Member has withdrawn, he
or she shall forthwith be named by the Speaker and the proceedings shall then
be as provided in standing orders 304 and 305, except that the question for
the suspension of the Member shall be put by the Speaker without a motion
being necessary. If the question for the suspension of the Member is
resolved in the negative, he or she may forthwith return to the Chamber. |
| 307 |
A Member who has been suspended from the service of
the House or ordered by the Speaker to withdraw from the House for one hour
shall be excluded from the Chamber, all its galleries and any room where the
Main Committee is meeting. |
| 308 |
In the case of grave disorder arising in the House,
the Speaker may suspend the sitting for a time to be specified, or adjourn
the House without any question being put. |
| 309 |
A Member who wilfully disobeys any order of the House
may be ordered without notice to attend to answer for his or her conduct. |
| 310 |
The Serjeant-at-Arms shall remove any stranger who
causes a disturbance in any part of the Chamber or the room in which the Main
Committee is meeting or any gallery of those places, or who does not withdraw
when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House or the Main
Committee is sitting. |
| 311 |
When any member or other person has been taken into
the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, such arrest shall be reported to the
House by the Speaker without delay. |
| |
|
| |
From 16 November 2004[95] Disorder |
| 60 |
Order kept by Speaker or Chair (a)
The Speaker, or the occupier of the Chair of the House at the time
shall keep order in the House. (b)
The Deputy Speaker, or the occupier of the Chair of the Main Committee/Federation
Chamber at the time shall keep order in the Committee/Federation Chamber. The
House may address disorder in the Committee/Federation Chamber after
receiving a report from the Deputy Speaker. |
| 88 |
Use of certain names A Member must not refer disrespectfully to the Queen,
the Governor-General, or a State Governor, in debate for the purpose of
influencing the House in its deliberations. |
| 89 |
Offensive words A Member must not use offensive words against: (a)
either House of the Parliament or a Member of the Parliament; or (b)
a member of the Judiciary. |
| 90 |
Reflections on members All imputations of improper motives to a Member and
all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly
disorderly. |
| 91 |
Disorderly conduct 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. |
| 92 |
Intervention by Speaker (a)
The Speaker can intervene: (i)
to prevent any personal quarrel between Members during proceedings;
and (ii)
when a Member’s conduct is considered offensive or disorderly. (b)
When the Speaker’s attention is drawn to the conduct of a Member, the
Speaker shall determine whether or not it is offensive or disorderly. |
| 93 |
Member ordered to attend House A Member who wilfully disobeys an order of the House
may be ordered to attend the House to answer for his or her conduct. A motion
to this effect can be moved without notice. |
| 94 |
Sanctions
against disorderly conduct The Speaker can take action
against disorderly conduct by a Member: Direction to leave the
Chamber (a) The Speaker can direct a disorderly Member to leave the
Chamber for one hour. The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent,
and if the Member does not leave the Chamber immediately, the Speaker can
name the Member under the following procedure. Member named and suspended (b) The Speaker can name a disorderly Member. Immediately
following a naming, on a motion being moved, the Speaker shall put the
question— That the Member be suspended
from the service of the House. The question must be
resolved without amendment, adjournment or debate. Urgent action (c) If the Speaker determines there is an urgent need to
protect the dignity of the House, the Speaker can order a grossly disorderly
Member to leave the Chamber immediately. When the Member has withdrawn, the
Speaker must immediately name the Member and paragraph (b) shall apply;
except that the Speaker shall 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. Term of suspension (d) If a Member is named and suspended, the term of the
suspension shall be: (i)
on the first occasion, for the 24
hour period from the time of suspension; (ii)
on the second occasion during the
same calendar year, for the three consecutive sittings following the day of
suspension; and (iii)
on a third or later occasion during
the same calendar year, for the seven consecutive sittings following the day
of suspension. A suspension in a previous
session or an order to withdraw for one hour shall be disregarded in the
calculation of these terms. Exclusion from Chamber and
Main Committee (e) A Member who is serving a one hour withdrawal or a
suspension for 24 hours or more, shall be excluded from the Chamber, its
galleries and the room in which the Main Committee is meeting. Removal of Member (f) If a Member refuses to follow the Speaker’s direction,
the Speaker may order the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the Member from the Chamber
or the Main Committee/Federation Chamber or take the Member into custody. |
| 95 |
If grave disorder, House suspended or adjourned In the event of grave disorder occurring in the House,
the Speaker, without any question being put, can: (a)
suspend the sitting and state the time at which he or she will resume
the Chair; or (b)
adjourn the House to the next sitting. |
| 96 |
Serjeant-at-Arms to remove persons If a visitor or person other than a Member disturbs
the operation of the Chamber or the Main Committee/Federation Chamber, the
Serjeant-at-Arms can remove the person or take the person into custody. If a visitor or other person is taken into custody by
the Serjeant-at-Arms, the Speaker must report this to the House without
delay. |
| |
|
| 55 |
Lack of quorum (e) If a quorum is in fact present when a Member draws
attention to the state of the House, the Speaker may name the Member in
accordance with standing order 94(b) (sanctions against disorderly
conduct). |
| |
|
| |
From 9 February 2006 |
| 187 |
Maintenance of order [in the Main Committee/Federation
Chamber] |
| |
(a) In the Main Committee/Federation Chamber the
Deputy Speaker has the same responsibility for the preservation of order as
the Speaker has in the House. (b) If disorder occurs in the Committee/Federation Chamber,
the Deputy Speaker: (i) may direct the Member or Members concerned to
leave the room for a period of 15 minutes [standing order 94(e) (exclusion
from Chamber, etc.) does not apply]; or (ii) may, or on motion moved without notice by any
Member must, suspend or adjourn the sitting. If the sitting is adjourned, any
business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment
shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting. (c) Following a suspension or adjournment of the Committee/Federation
Chamber or a refusal of a Member to leave when so directed under paragraph
(b), the Deputy Speaker must report the disorder to the House. (d) The Deputy Speaker may report the conduct of a
Member whether or not action has been taken under paragraph (b). (e) Any subsequent action against a Member under standing
order 94 (sanctions against disorderly conduct) may only be taken in the
House. |
Appendix B: Removal from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms
Instances where the Serjeant-at-Arms has been called upon to
escort a member from the
House of Representatives Chamber
| Date |
Member |
Circumstances of Serjeant-at-Arms
being called upon |
| 22 Feb 1917 |
Maloney, William
(ALP, Melbourne, Vic.) |
Directed to be escorted from the Chamber after having
been named and suspended and continuing to address the House. |
| 5 Sep 1917 |
Anstey, Frank
(ALP, Bourke, Vic.) |
Interjecting and refusing to be
silent; was named for defying the Chair. The Chairman called upon the
Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member, who thereupon retired. As Anstey
was being escorted out of the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms, he said: ‘You
need not lay your hand upon me, I will walk out.’ |
| 22 Jul 1920 |
Fenton, James
(ALP, Maribyrnong, Vic.) |
Named and suspended for
accusing the Deputy Speaker of being ‘one-eyed’. He refused to leave but did
so escorted by the Serjeant-at-Arms when the official was called upon to
remove him. |
| 19 Aug 1920 |
Lavelle, Thomas
(ALP, Calare, NSW) |
Named and suspended for
disregarding the authority of the chair. He refused to leave the Chamber and
so was escorted from it by the Serjeant-at-Arms at the direction of the
Speaker. |
| 20 Oct 1920 |
Blakeley, Arthur
(ALP, Darling, NSW) |
Named and suspended for ‘deliberately
defying the authority of the chair’ and refused to leave the Chamber. |
| 22 Oct 1920 |
Mathews, James
(ALP, Melbourne, Vic.) |
Refused to resume his seat calling on
the Speaker to name the Prime Minister. The Speaker then called on the
Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him ‘for disregarding my direction to resume his
seat.’ |
| 17 Aug 1923 |
McGrath, David
(ALP, Ballaarat [sic], Vic.) |
Required escorting from the Chamber after being named
and suspended for refusing to withdraw a question which was considered by the
Speaker to be a reflection upon the Justices of the High Court. |
| 10 May 1950 |
Cameron, Clyde
(ALP, Hindmarsh, SA) |
Called attention to the fact that a
quorum of members was not present; the Speaker, having counted the House and forming
a quorum, named Cameron as grossly disorderly by disputing the count made by
the Chair. |
| 26 Oct 1950 |
Haylen, Les
(ALP, Parkes, NSW) |
Was grossly disorderly by continuing
to interject after warnings had been given by the Chair. |
| 6 Nov 1951 |
Curtin, Daniel
(ALP, Watson, NSW) |
Was grossly disorderly by continuing
to interject after a warning had been given by the Chair. |
| 13 Mar 1953 |
Curtin, Daniel
(ALP, Watson, NSW) |
Was grossly disorderly by using an
unparliamentary expression. |
| 16 Oct 1957 |
Cameron, Clyde
(ALP, Hindmarsh, SA) |
Reflected on the Chair. |
| 16 Oct 1957 |
Haylen, Les
(ALP, Parkes, NSW) |
Interjected. |
| 6 Sep 1961 |
Ward, Eddie
(ALP, East Sydney, NSW) |
Continued to defy the Chair. |
| 23 May 1963 |
Ward, Eddie
(ALP, East Sydney, NSW) |
Continuing to interject after having
been warned from the Chair. |
| 9 Apr 1970 |
Bryant, Gordon
(ALP, Wills, Vic.) |
Defying the
Chair. After being suspended he refused to leave and the Serjeant-at-Arms was
ordered to direct him to leave. Bryant still refused to leave and
grave disorder arose which caused the Speaker to suspend the sitting. When
the sitting was resumed, Bryant again refused to leave the Chamber. Grave
disorder again arose and the sitting was suspended until the next day, when Bryant
then expressed regret and withdrew from the Chamber. |
| 18 Oct 1973 |
Calder, Stephen
(CP, Northern Territory, NT) |
Disregarding the authority of the
Chair. |
| 27 Nov 1974 |
Wentworth, William
(LP, Mackellar, NSW) |
Continuing to disobey the Chair and not
having resumed his seat when directed to do so by the Chair. |
| 16 May 1991 |
Tuckey, Wilson
(LP, O’Connor, WA) |
Disorderly conduct. Was named
and suspended for referring to a personal relationship of another member. Tuckey
objected that there had been no division on the suspension motion. |
| 2 Jul 1998 |
Zammitt, Paul
(IND, Lowe, NSW) |
Persistently disregarding the
authority of the Chair. |
| 23 Oct 2003 |
Sen Brown, Bob
(AG, Tas.) |
Continuing to interject after a
warning had been given from the Chair during a Joint Sitting to hear US
President George W Bush’s address to Parliament in the House of Representatives
Chamber. |
| 23 Oct 2003 |
Sen Nettle, Kerry
(AG, NSW) |
Continuing to interject after a
warning had been given from the Chair during a Joint Sitting to hear US
President George W Bush’s address to Parliament in the House of
Representatives Chamber. |
| 22 Feb 2008 |
Ciobo, Steven
(LP, Moncrieff, Qld) |
Gross disorderly conduct in refusing
to leave the Chamber for one hour under Standing Order 94(a). |
Appendix C: Members listed alphabetically by the type and
number of disciplinary actions taken against them
| Member
and Party |
Named
but not proceeded with |
Named
but negatived |
Named
and suspended |
Sin
binned |
Total |
| Abbott,
Joseph (CP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Abbott,
Tony (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
7 |
8 |
| Adams,
Dick (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
9 |
11 |
| Albanese,
Anthony (ALP) |
– |
– |
4 |
44 |
48 |
| Aldred,
Ken (LP) |
– |
– |
6 |
– |
6 |
| Andren,
Peter (IND) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Andrews,
Kevin (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Anstey,
Frank (ALP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Anthony,
Doug (NP) |
1 |
– |
2 |
– |
3 |
| Anthony,
Hubert (CP) |
2 |
– |
5 |
– |
7 |
| Anthony,
Larry (NP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Bailey,
Fran (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Baldwin,
Bob (LP) |
– |
1 |
1 |
7 |
9 |
| Barnard,
Lance (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Bate,
Jeff (LP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Bayley,
James (NAT) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Beale,
Howard (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Beazley,
Kim C (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Beddall,
David (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Bevis,
Arch (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
11 |
13 |
| Billson,
Bruce (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
4 |
4 |
| Bird,
Sharon (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Bishop,
Bronwyn (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
17 |
17 |
| Bishop,
Julie (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
8 |
8 |
| Blakeley,
Arthur (ALP) |
3 |
– |
4 |
– |
7 |
| Bowen,
Chris (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
| Brennan,
Frank (ALP) |
3 |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
| Briggs,
Jamie (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
13 |
13 |
| Broadbent,
Russell (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Brown,
Neil (LP) |
– |
– |
3 |
– |
3 |
| Brown,
Sen Bob (AG) |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
2 |
| Bryant,
Gordon (ALP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Bryson,
William (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Buchholz,
Scott (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Burke,
Anna (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Burke,
Thomas (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Burke,
Tony (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
5 |
| Butler,
Mark (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Butler, Terri (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
35 |
35 |
| Byrne,
Anthony (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Cadman,
Alan (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Cairns,
Jim (ALP) |
1 |
– |
4 |
– |
5 |
| Calder,
Stephen (NP) |
3 |
– |
1 |
– |
4 |
| Calwell,
Arthur (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Cameron,
Archie (CP, LP) |
– |
– |
3 |
– |
3 |
| Cameron,
Clyde (ALP) |
2 |
1 |
3 |
– |
6 |
| Cameron,
Ian (NP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Cameron,
Ross (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Campbell,
Graeme (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Catts,
James (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Chalmers,
Jim (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
23 |
24 |
| Champion,
Nick (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
80 |
80 |
| Chaney,
Fred M (LP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Chester,
Darren (NP) |
– |
– |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| Chesters,
Lisa (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
12 |
12 |
| Christensen,
George (NP) |
– |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
| Ciobo,
Steve (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
5 |
6 |
| Clare,
Jason (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Clark,
Joseph (ALP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Claydon,
Sharon (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
5 |
| Cobb,
John (NP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Cobb,
Michael (NP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Collins,
Julie (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
4 |
4 |
| Connolly,
David (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Conroy,
Pat (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
34 |
34 |
| Considine,
Michael (ALP) |
– |
– |
5 |
– |
5 |
| Cook,
Joseph (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Cope,
Jim (ALP) |
1 |
– |
2 |
– |
3 |
| Corser,
Bernard (CP) |
2 |
– |
3 |
– |
5 |
| Costello,
Peter (LP) |
1 |
– |
– |
2 |
3 |
| Courtnay,
Frank (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Cox,
David (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
2 |
| Crean,
Frank (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Crean,
Simon (ALP) |
– |
– |
3 |
17 |
20 |
| Crosio,
Janice (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
15 |
15 |
| Curtin,
Daniel (ALP) |
– |
– |
6 |
– |
6 |
| Daly,
Fred (ALP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Danby,
Michael (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
16 |
16 |
| Dargavel,
Steve (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Darling,
Elaine (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Dawkins,
John (ALP) |
1 |
– |
2 |
– |
3 |
| Downer,
Alexander (LP) |
1 |
– |
2 |
4 |
7 |
| Draper,
Trish (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Dreyfus,
Mark (ALP) |
– |
– |
3 |
36 |
39 |
| Duffy,
Michael (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Duthie,
Gilbert (ALP) |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
| Dutton,
Peter (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
26 |
26 |
| Edmonds,
William (ALP) |
– |
– |
3 |
– |
3 |
| Edwards,
Graham (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
7 |
7 |
| Eldridge,
John (LANG LAB) |
3 |
– |
1 |
– |
4 |
| Elliot,
Justine (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Ellis,
Annette (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Ellis,
Kate (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
13 |
13 |
| Emerson,
Craig (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
11 |
12 |
| Evans,
Gareth (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Evans,
Richard (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Evatt,
Bert (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Everingham,
Paul (LP) |
1 |
– |
2 |
– |
3 |
| Farmer,
Pat (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Feeney,
David (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Fenton,
James (ALP) |
4 |
– |
1 |
– |
5 |
| Ferguson,
Laurie (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Ferguson,
Martin (ALP) |
– |
– |
3 |
7 |
10 |
| Ferguson,
Michael (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Filing,
Paul (LP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Fitzgibbon,
Joel (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
21 |
23 |
| Fletcher,
Paul (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| Forbes,
Jim (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Forde,
Frank (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Foster,
Richard (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Fraser,
Allan (ALP) |
2 |
– |
4 |
– |
6 |
| Fraser,
Jim (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Fraser,
Malcolm (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Freeth,
Gordon (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Frydenberg,
Josh (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Gabb,
Joel (ALP, UAP) |
2 |
– |
3 |
– |
5 |
| Gallus,
Christine (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Gambaro,
Teresa (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Garland,
Vic (LP) |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
| Gash,
Joanna (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Georganas,
Steve (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| George,
Jennie (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Gibbons,
Steve (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Giles,
Andrew (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Gillard,
Julia (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
6 |
7 |
| Goodluck,
Bruce (LP) |
3 |
– |
1 |
– |
4 |
| Gorton,
John (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Green,
Roland (CP) |
2 |
– |
1 |
– |
3 |
| Griffin,
Alan (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
7 |
8 |
| Griggs,
Natasha (CLP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Gullett,
Henry (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Haase,
Barry (LP) |
– |
– |
2 |
5 |
7 |
| Hale,
Damian (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
5 |
| Hall,
Jill (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
4 |
4 |
| Halverson,
Bob (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Harrison,
Eli (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Hartsuyker,
Luke (NP) |
– |
– |
2 |
3 |
5 |
| Hatton,
Michael (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Hawke,
Alex (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
4 |
4 |
| Hawke,
Bob (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Hayden,
Bill (ALP) |
2 |
– |
3 |
– |
5 |
| Haylen,
Les (ALP) |
2 |
– |
8 |
– |
10 |
| Higgs,
William (ALP) |
2 |
– |
3 |
– |
5 |
| Hoare,
Kelly (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
8 |
8 |
| Hockey,
Joe (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
27 |
27 |
| Hodgman,
Michael (LP) |
– |
– |
3 |
– |
3 |
| Hollis,
Colin (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Holloway,
Edward (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Holt,
Harold (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Horne,
Bob (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
4 |
4 |
| Howard,
John (LP) |
– |
– |
3 |
– |
3 |
| Howe,
Brian (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Hughes,
William (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Hunt,
Greg (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
12 |
12 |
| Husic,
Ed (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
22(a) |
23 |
| Irons,
Steve (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Irwin,
Julia (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
28 |
30 |
| Jackson,
Sharryn (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| James,
Rowland (ALP) |
10 |
1 |
3 |
– |
14 |
| Jensen,
Dennis (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
9 |
10 |
| Jess,
John (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Johnson,
Leonard (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Johnson,
Les (ALP) |
2 |
– |
1 |
– |
3 |
| Johnson,
Michael (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Jones,
Charlie (ALP) |
3 |
– |
2 |
– |
5 |
| Jones,
Ewen (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
18 |
18 |
| Jones,
Stephen (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Katter,
Bob Carl (NP, IND, KAP) |
2 |
– |
2 |
4 |
8 |
| Keating,
Paul (ALP) |
2 |
– |
2 |
– |
4 |
| Kelly,
Craig (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Kelly,
De-Anne (NP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Kelly,
Jackie (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Kelly,
Mike (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Kent,
Lewis (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Keon,
Stan (ALP (A–C)) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Kernot,
Cheryl (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| Kerr,
Duncan (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
17 |
17 |
| King,
Catherine (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
18 |
18 |
| King,
Robert (NP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Klugman,
Dick (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Laming,
Andrew (LP) |
– |
– |
2 |
19 |
21 |
| Lane,
Albert (UAP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Latham,
Mark (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
9 |
11 |
| Lavelle,
Thomas (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Lawrence,
Carmen (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Lazzarini,
Hubert (LANG LAB) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Lee,
Michael (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Leigh,
Andrew (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Lewis,
Austin (ALP) |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
| Ley,
Sussan (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Lieberman,
Lou (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Lindsay,
Peter (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
4 |
5 |
| Lloyd,
Bruce (NP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Lucock,
Philip (NP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Lusher,
Stephen (NP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Lynch,
Phillip (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Lyons,
Geoff (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Macklin,
Jenny (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
9 |
9 |
| MacTiernan,
Alannah (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
20 |
20 |
| Mahoney,
Gerald (ALP) |
3 |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
| Mahony,
William (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Makin,
Norman (ALP) |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
| Maloney,
William (ALP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Marino,
Nola (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Marles,
Richard (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
10 |
10 |
| Martens,
George (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Martin,
Stephen (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Massy–Greene,
Walter (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Matheson,
Russell (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Mathews,
James (ALP) |
– |
– |
3 |
– |
3 |
| McCormack,
Michael (NP) |
– |
– |
– |
8 |
8 |
| McEwen,
John (CP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| McGauran,
Peter (NP) |
1 |
– |
3 |
1 |
5 |
| McGrath,
David (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| McLeay,
Leo (ALP) |
– |
– |
4 |
7 |
11 |
| McMullan,
Bob (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| McNamara,
Karen (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Menzies,
Robert (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Mirabella,
Sophie (LP)* |
– |
– |
1 |
11 |
12 |
| Mitchell,
Rob (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
6 |
6 |
| Morgan,
Arthur (NAT) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Morgan,
Charles (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Morris,
Alan (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Morrison,
Scott (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
13 |
14 |
| Mullens,
John (ALP (A-C)) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Murphy,
John (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Neil,
Maurice (LP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Nettle,
Sen Kerry (AG) |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
2 |
| Newman,
Kevin (LP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Nikolic,
Andrew (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Nixon,
Peter (NP) |
– |
– |
3 |
– |
3 |
| O’Byrne,
Michelle (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| O’Connor,
Brendan (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
27 |
27 |
| O’Connor,
Gavan (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
9 |
11 |
| O’Dwyer,
Kelly (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
7 |
7 |
| O’Keefe,
Neil (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
18 |
19 |
| O’Neil,
Clare (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
5 |
| Osborne,
Frederick (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Owens,
Julie (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
16 |
16 |
| Page,
James (ALP) |
2 |
– |
1 |
– |
3 |
| Palmer,
Albert (LP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Parke,
Melissa (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Pasin,
Tony (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Patterson,
Rex (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Peacock,
Andrew (LP) |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
| Pearce,
Christopher (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Perrett,
Graham (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
58 |
58 |
| Peters,
Ted (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Plibersek,
Tanya (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
29 |
29 |
| Pollard,
Reg (ALP) |
4 |
– |
4 |
– |
8 |
| Price,
Roger (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Pyne,
Christopher (LP) |
– |
– |
2 |
43 |
45 |
| Quick,
Harry (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Ramsey,
Rowan (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Randall,
Don (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
14 |
14 |
| Rankin,
George (CP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Reid,
Bruce (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Reith,
Peter (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Reynolds,
Leonard (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Riley,
Edward C (ALP) |
2 |
– |
1 |
– |
3 |
| Riordan,
David (ALP) |
2 |
– |
1 |
– |
3 |
| Ripoll,
Bernie (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
18 |
18 |
| Rishworth,
Amanda (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
4 |
4 |
| Robb,
Andrew (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
7 |
7 |
| Robert,
Stuart (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
13 |
14 |
| Roberton,
Hugh (CP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Robinson,
Ian (NP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Rosevear,
John (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Rowland,
Michelle (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Roxon,
Nicola (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
4 |
4 |
| Roy,
Wyatt (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Rudd,
Kevin (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Ruddock,
Philip (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Ryan,
Joanne (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
5 |
| Sawford,
Rod (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Scholes,
Gordon (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Schultz,
Alby (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
5 |
| Scott,
Bruce (NP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Scott,
John (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Sercombe,
Bob (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Sharp,
John (NP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Sherry,
Ray (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Sidebottom,
Sid (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Simpkins,
Luke (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
17 |
17 |
| Sinclair,
Ian (NP) |
2 |
– |
3 |
– |
5 |
| Slipper,
Peter (LP) |
– |
– |
3 |
2 |
5 |
| Smith,
Stephen (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Smith,
Tony (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
9 |
9 |
| Snowdon,
Warren (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
25 |
27 |
| Southcott,
Andrew (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Spender,
John (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Spender,
Percy (LP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Stewart,
Frank (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Stewart,
Frederick (UAP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Sukkar,
Michael (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Swan,
Wayne (ALP) |
– |
– |
6 |
17 |
23 |
| Tanner,
Lindsay (ALP) |
– |
– |
2 |
25 |
27 |
| Tehan,
Dan (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Theodore,
Ted (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Thistlethwaite,
Matt (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
6 |
6 |
| Thomas,
Josiah (ALP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Thompson,
Cameron (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Thomson,
Kelvin (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
5 |
5 |
| Truss,
Warren (NP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Tuckey,
Wilson (LP) |
1 |
– |
14 |
16 |
31 |
| Tudge,
Alan (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
3 |
3 |
| Turnbull,
Malcolm (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Uren,
Tom (ALP) |
2 |
– |
5 |
– |
7 |
| Vamvakinou,
Maria (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
7 |
7 |
| van
Manen, Bert (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Ward,
Eddie (ALP) |
1 |
– |
16 |
– |
17 |
| Watts,
Tim (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
| Webster,
William (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Wentworth,
William (LP) |
– |
– |
10 |
– |
10 |
| West,
John (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| White,
Thomas (LP) |
– |
– |
2 |
– |
2 |
| Whitlam,
Gough (ALP) |
1 |
– |
1 |
– |
2 |
| Whittorn,
Ray (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Wight,
Bruce (LP) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Wilkie,
Kim (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
11 |
11 |
| Williams,
Matthew (LP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Wilson,
John (FT) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Wilton,
Greg (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
2 |
2 |
| Windsor,
Tony (IND) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Woods,
Harry (ALP) |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
1 |
| Yates,
George (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Young,
Mick (ALP) |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
1 |
| Zahra,
Christian (ALP) |
– |
– |
1 |
9 |
10 |
| Zammit,
Paul (IND) |
– |
– |
1 |
– |
1 |
| Total |
132 |
3 |
318 |
1 423 |
1 876 |
(a) Includes one
ejection from the Federation Chamber for 15 minutes
Key: The member’s party affiliation is that when they were
disciplined. ALP – Australian Labor Party; LP – Liberal Party; NP – National
Party; CP – Country Party; NAT – Nationalist Party; ALP (A-C) – ALP
(Anti-Communist); LANG LAB – Lang Labor; FT – Free Trade; IND – Independent;
UAP – United Australia Party
Appendix D: Disciplinary
actions by speakership
| Speakerships
(bolded) and Chairs |
Disciplinary
actions per Chair |
Disciplinary
actions per speakership |
Sitting
days per speakership |
Disciplinary
actions per sitting day |
| Holder,
Sir Frederick (9.5.1901 – 23.7.1909) |
2 |
2 |
791(a) |
.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 |
| Dep
Sp Chanter, John |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Johnson,
William (14.6.1917 – 6.11.1922) |
7 |
18 |
433 |
.042 |
| Chair/Dep
Sp Chanter, John |
10 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Watkins, David |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Watt,
William (28.2.1923 – 3.10.1925) |
2 |
6 |
171 |
.035 |
| Temp
Chair Bayley, James |
4 |
– |
– |
– |
| Groom,
Sir Littleton (13.1.1926 – 16.9.1929) |
2 |
7 |
245 |
.029 |
| Chair/Dep
Sp Bayley, James |
5 |
– |
– |
– |
| Makin,
Norman (20.11.1929 – 27.11.1931) |
14 |
25 |
206 |
.121 |
| Chair/Dep
Sp McGrath, David |
8 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Prowse, John |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Crouch, Richard |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Mackay,
George (17.2.1932–7.8.1934) |
5 |
14 |
154 |
.091 |
| Chair
Bell, George |
9 |
– |
– |
– |
| Bell,
George (23.10.1934 – 27.8.1940) |
14 |
23 |
323 |
.071 |
| Temp
Chair Nairn, Walter |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Chair
Prowse, John |
8 |
– |
– |
– |
| Nairn,
Walter (20.11.1940 – 21.6.1943) |
– |
4 |
140 |
.029 |
| Dep
Sp Martens, George |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Chair
Prowse, John |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Prowse, John |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Rosevear,
John (22.6.1943 – 31.10.1949) |
11 |
25 |
490 |
.051 |
| Temp
Chair Martens, George |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Chair
Riordan, William |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Clark, Joseph |
8 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Burke, Thomas |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Lazzarini, Hubert |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Cameron,
Archie (22.2.1950 – 9.8.1956) |
28 |
42 |
424 |
.099 |
| Chair,
Dep Sp Adermann, Charles |
11 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp McLeay, John |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Bowden, George |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Harrison, Eric |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| McLeay, John
(29.8.1956 – 31.10.1966) |
28 |
48 |
655 |
.073 |
| Dep
Sp, Temp Chair Lawrence, William |
4 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp, Chair, Temp Chair, Ag Sp Lucock, Philip |
12 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Chaney, Fred |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Chair
Bowden, George |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Temp
Chair Wight, Bruce |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Aston,
William (21.2.1967 – 2.11.1972) |
14 |
18 |
387 |
.047 |
| Dep
Chair Hallett, John |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Drury, Edward |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Cope,
James (27.2.1973 – 27.2.1975) |
19 |
28 |
155(b) |
.181 |
| Dep
Sp Jenkins, Dr Harry |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp, Chair Scholes, Gordon |
5 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Martin, Stephen |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Luchetti, Anthony |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Scholes,
Gordon (27.2.1975 – 11.11.1975) |
2 |
6 |
61(c) |
.098 |
| Dep
Sp Berinson, Joe |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Innes, Urquhart |
3 |
– |
– |
– |
| Snedden,
Billy (17.2.1976 – 4.2.1983) |
13 |
24 |
456 |
.053 |
| Ag
Sp Lucock, Philip |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp, Ag Sp Millar, Percy |
5 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Jarman, Alan |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Giles, Geoffrey |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
| Jenkins,
Dr Henry (21.4.1983 – 20.12.1985) |
14 |
16 |
167 |
.096 |
| Ag
Sp Johnson, Les |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Ag
Sp Child, Joan |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Child,
Joan (11.2.1986 – 28.8.1989) |
12 |
20 |
251 |
.080 |
| Dep
Sp, Ag Sp McLeay, Leo |
4 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Blanchard, Cecil |
3 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Rocher, Allan |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| McLeay,
Leo (29.8.1989 – 8.2.1993) |
16 |
22 |
191 |
.115 |
| Ag
Sp, Dep Sp Edwards, Ron |
5 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Scholes, Gordon |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Martin,
Stephen (4.5.1993 – 29.1.1996) |
24 |
27 |
184 |
.147 |
| Dep
Sp Andrew, Neil |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Rocher, Allan |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Jenkins, Harry |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Halverson,
Robert (30.4.1996 – 3.3.1998) |
51 |
55 |
139 |
.396 |
| Dep
Sp Nehl, Garry |
3 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Truss, Warren |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Sinclair, Ian
(4.3.1998 – 31.8.1998) |
16 |
18 |
37 |
.486 |
| Dep
Sp Quick, Harry |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Nehl, Garry |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Andrew,
Neil (10.11.1998 – 31.8.2004) |
192 |
220 |
406 |
.542 |
| Dep
Sp Causley, Ian |
20 |
– |
– |
– |
| Ag
Sp Nehl, Garry |
7 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Price, Roger |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Hawker,
David (16.11.2004 – 17.10.2007) |
188 |
223 |
196 |
1.138 |
| Dep
Sp Causley, Ian |
35 |
– |
– |
– |
| Jenkins,
Harry (12.2.2008 – 24.11.2011) |
252 |
265 |
256 |
1.035 |
| Dep
Sp Burke, Anna |
5 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Slipper, Peter |
6 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Scott, Bruce |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Bird, Sharon |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Slipper,
Peter (24.11.2011 – 9.10.2012) |
67 |
115 |
54 |
2.130 |
| Dep
Sp Burke, Anna |
48 |
– |
– |
– |
| Burke,
Anna (9.10.2012 – 5.8.2013) |
66 |
66 |
44 |
1.500 |
| Bishop,
Bronwyn (12.11.2013 – 10.8.2015) |
400 |
402 |
130 |
3.092 |
| Dep
Sp Scott, Bruce |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Dep
Sp Griggs, Natasha |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Smith,
Tony (10.8.2015 – 9.5.2016)(d) |
121 |
122 |
60 |
2.033 |
| Dep
Speaker Scott, Bruce |
1 |
– |
– |
– |
| Total |
1 876 |
1 876 |
7 801 |
0.24 |
(a) Does not
include the sitting day after Holder died.
(b) Includes
the two joint sitting days that Cope presided over (6–7 August 1974) and the
day he resigned (27 February 1975).
(c) Includes the day Scholes became Speaker (27
February 1975) which was the same day Cope resigned (hence an instance of
double counting).
(d) Includes
Smith’s speakership during the 44th Parliament only.
Appendix E: Types of disciplinary action by speakership
| Speaker |
Named but not proceeded with |
Named and suspended |
Sin binned |
Total |
| Holder, Sir Frederick (9.5.1901 – 23.7.1909) |
2 |
– |
– |
2 |
| Salmon, Charles (28.7.1909 – 19.2.1910) |
– |
– |
– |
– |
| McDonald, Charles (1.7.1910 – 23.4.1913) |
4 |
2 |
– |
6 |
| Johnson, William (9.7.1913 – 30.7.1914) |
1 |
4 |
– |
5 |
| McDonald, Charles (8.10.1914 – 26.3.1917) |
– |
4 |
– |
4 |
| Johnson, William (14.6.1917 – 6.11.1922) |
2 |
16 |
– |
18 |
| Watt, William (28.2.1923 – 3.10.1925) |
3 |
3 |
– |
6 |
| Groom, Sir Littleton (13.1.1926 – 16.9.1929) |
5 |
2 |
– |
7 |
| Makin, Norman (20.11.1929 – 27.11.1931) |
22 |
3 |
– |
25 |
| Mackay, George (17.2.1932 – 7.8.1934) |
7 |
7 |
– |
14 |
| Bell, George (23.10.1934 – 27.8.1940) |
10(a) |
13 |
– |
23 |
| Nairn, Walter (20.11.1940 – 21.6.1943) |
4 |
– |
– |
4 |
| Rosevear, John (22.6.1943 – 31.10.1949) |
3 |
22 |
– |
25 |
| Cameron, Archie (22.2.1950 – 9.8.1956) |
8 |
34 |
– |
42 |
| McLeay, John (29.8.1956 – 31.10.1966) |
16 |
32 |
– |
48 |
| Aston, William (21.2.1967 – 2.11.1972) |
6 |
12 |
– |
18 |
| Cope, James (27.2.1973 – 27.2.1975) |
12(a) |
16 |
– |
28 |
| Scholes, Gordon (27.2.1975 – 11.11.1975) |
2 |
4 |
– |
6 |
| Snedden, Billy (17.2.1976 – 4.2.1983) |
11 |
13 |
– |
24 |
| Jenkins, Dr Henry (21.4.1983 – 20.12.1985) |
6 |
10 |
– |
16 |
| Child, Joan (11.2.1986 – 28.8.1989) |
2 |
18 |
– |
20 |
| McLeay, Leo (29.8.1989 – 8.2.1993) |
6 |
16 |
– |
22 |
| Martin, Stephen (4.5.1993 – 29.1.1996) |
– |
11 |
16 |
27 |
| Halverson, Robert (30.4.1996 – 3.3.1998) |
– |
12 |
43 |
55 |
| Sinclair, Ian (4.3.1998 – 31.8.1998) |
– |
3 |
15 |
18 |
| Andrew, Neil (10.11.1998 – 31.8.2004) |
2 |
27 |
191 |
220 |
| Hawker, David (16.11.2004 – 17.10.2007) |
– |
8 |
215 |
223 |
| Jenkins, Harry (12.2.2008 – 24.11.2011) |
1(a) |
17 |
247 |
265 |
| Slipper, Peter (24.11.2011 – 9.10.2012) |
– |
1 |
114 |
115 |
| Burke, Anna (9.10.2012 – 5.8.2013) |
– |
– |
66 |
66 |
| Bishop, Bronwyn (12.11.2013 – 2.8.2015) |
– |
7 |
395(b) |
402 |
| Smith, Tony (10.8.2015 – 9.5.2016)(c) |
– |
1 |
121 |
122 |
| Total |
135 |
318 |
1 423 |
1 876 |
(a) Includes one negatived.
(b) Includes one ejection from the
Federation Chamber for 15 minutes.
(c) Includes Smith’s speakership during
the 44th Parliament only.
Appendix F:
Comparison of disciplinary actions taken in the first and second weeks of a
sitting fortnight, 1990–2016
| Year |
Number
of consecutive weeks (‘sitting fortnights’) |
Number
of consecutive weeks where the number of disciplinary actions was less in the
second week than the first week |
Number
of consecutive weeks where the number of disciplinary actions was the same in
the second week as the first week |
Number
of consecutive weeks where the number of disciplinary actions was more in the
second week than the first week |
Consecutive
weeks where the number of disciplinary actions was the same or more than the
first week |
| 1990 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
| 1991 |
8 |
0 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
| 1992 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
| 1993 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
| 1994 |
7 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
| 1995 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| 1996 |
7 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| 1997 |
9 |
6 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
| 1998 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
| 1999 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 2000 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
6 |
| 2001 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
| 2002 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
6 |
| 2003 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
| 2004 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
| 2005 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
7 |
| 2006 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 2007 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| 2008 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
7 |
| 2009 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
| 2010 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
| 2011 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 2012 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
| 2013 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
| 2014 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
| 2015 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
| 2016
(a) |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
| Total |
181 |
57 |
31.5% |
33 |
18.2% |
91 |
50.2% |
124 |
68.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) To the end of the 44th
Parliament on 9 May 2016.
[1]. The term ‘disciplinary
action’ is used in this paper to cover four types of action in response to
disorderly behaviour: where a member has been named but the matter has not
proceeded to them being suspended from the House (this includes instances where
the member has been named but the vote to suspend them has been
defeated/negatived); where a member has been named and suspended from the
House; where a member has been ordered to withdraw from the House for one hour
(‘sin binned’); or where a member has been ordered from the Federation Chamber
for 15 minutes. It does not include behaviour which may ordinarily be seen as
disruptive or disorderly (for example interjecting), unless it is sanctioned
in the ways mentioned above. In this paper the term ‘Speaker’ includes Deputy Speaker
and whoever is occupying the Chair.
[2]. In 1994 a new
penalty for disorderly behaviour was introduced—the ‘sin bin’—which
dramatically changed the way such behaviour was dealt with and consequently the
number of instances of disorderly conduct. For this reason, the study has
sometimes analysed all the data since Federation and at other times just from
1994.
[3]. Section 49 of
the Australian Constitution: ‘The powers, privileges and immunities of
the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the
committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and
until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United
Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the
Commonwealth.’
[4]. Section 50 of
the Australian Constitution: ‘Each House of the Parliament may make
rules and orders with respect to: (i) the mode in which its powers, privileges,
and immunities may be exercised and upheld; (ii) the order and conduct of its
business and proceedings either separately or jointly with the other House.’
[5]. Unless
otherwise stated the paper refers to the Department of the House of
Representatives (DHR), House
of Representatives Standing Orders as at 26 March 2015, DHR, Canberra,
2015.
[6]. The Standing
Orders were revised and renumbered in November 2004.
[7]. P Slipper, ‘Parliamentary
Office Holders: Deputy Speaker’, House of Representatives, Debates,
24 November 2011, p. 13794.
[8]. BC Wright,
ed., House
of Representatives Practice, 6th edn, Department of the House of
Representatives, Canberra, 2012, p. 541.
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. House of
Representatives, Debates, 4 July 1919, p. 10465.
[11]. House of
Representatives, Debates, 9 April 1970, p. 883.
[12]. House of
Representatives, Debates,
22 February 2008, pp. 1281–83.
[13]. House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Procedure, Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders, Second report: Review of sessional
orders adopted on 17 March 2005 and 9 February 2006; and other matters, House of
Representatives, Canberra, October 2006, para 1.36.
[14]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 13 February 2014, p. 304.
[15]. Federation
Chamber, Debates,
13 February 2014, p. 482.
[16]. House
of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 1998–2001, pp. 2076–7,
2090.
[17]. House
of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 2002–04, p. 135; House of
Representatives, Debates,
20 March 2002, p. 1828. On report of the matter to the House the offending
member was named and suspended. House of Representatives, Votes and
Proceedings, 2002–04, p. 137.
[18]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 25 March 2015, p. 1238.
[19]. Federation
Chamber, Debates,
24 March 2015, p. 3327; House of Representatives, Debates,
25 March 2015, p. 3429.
[20]. Main
Committee, Debates,
17 October 2002, p. 8031.
[21]. Ibid.,
p. 8047.
[22]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
17 October 2002, p. 7973.
[23]. Ibid.
This instance is not included in this paper’s analyses because the member was not
named or ordered to withdraw from the Main Committee.
[24]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
14 October 1938, p. 861.
[25]. Ibid.
[26]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 27 February 1975, p. 502.
[27]. House of
Representatives, Debates, 27 February 1975, p. 824.
[28]. Ibid.,
p. 825.
[29]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
31 May 2011, p. 5282.
[30]. Ibid.; House of
Representatives, Debates,
31 May 2011, p. 5286.
[31]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
31 May 2011, p. 5284.
[32]. House
of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 1920–21, pp.
423, 425 and 431–33.
[33]. House
of Representatives Practice, 6th edn, 2012, p. 157.
[34]. Parliamentary
Privileges Act 1987(Cth), s. 8; see also E Campbell, Parliamentary
privilege, Federation Press, Sydney, 2003, pp. 213–21.
[35]. House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, The
Standing Orders Governing Disorder and Strangers, Australian Government
Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, October 1992, pp. 8–9.
[36]. G
Scholes, Procedure Committee Report, House of Representatives, Debates,
15 October 1992, p. 2195.
[37]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 11 November 1913, p. 152.
[38]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
11 November 1913, p. 2987.
[39]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
11 November 1913.
[40]. Tellers
are Members who are appointed by the Chair to record the names of Members who
are voting on each side; Wright, ed., House
of Representatives Practice, op.cit., p. 277.
[41]. House
of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 1913, pp.
151–53 and 1914–17, also p. 181.
[42]. Wright,
ed., House
of Representatives Practice, op.cit., p. 765.
[43]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
24 February 1987, pp. 573 and 580–87.
[44]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
21 December 1989, pp. 3353–79.
[45]. House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, The
Standing Orders Governing Disorder and Strangers, op.cit., pp.
4–5.
[46]. G
Scholes, Procedure Committee report, House of Representatives, Debates,
15 October 1992, p. 2195.
[47]. House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, About
time: bills, questions and working hours—report of the inquiry into reform of
the House of Representatives, AGPS, Canberra,
October 1993, p. 28.
[48]. These
provisions became incorporated into Standing Orders 304A and 307 (see Appendix
A) which took effect from 21 February 1994. House of Representatives, Debates,
10 February 1994, pp. 795–822.
[49]. House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, About
time: bills, questions and working hours—report of the inquiry into reform of
the House of Representatives, op.cit., p. 28.
[50]. P
Filing, House of Representatives, Debates,
28 October 1993, p. 2711; L McLeay, House of Representatives, Debates,
28 October 1993, p. 2714; R Price, House of Representatives, Debates,
28 October 1993, p. 2718; J Bradford, House of Representatives, Debates,
21 December 1993, p. 4519.
[51]. J
Sharp, House of Representatives, Debates, 21
December 1993, p. 4503.
[52]. I
Sinclair, House of Representatives, Debates,
17 December 1993, p. 4412.
[53]. I
Sinclair, House of Representatives, Debates,
10 February 1994, p. 819. Nevertheless, during his time as Speaker (4.3.1998 –
31.8.1998) Mr Sinclair used the sin bin on 14 out of 16 occasions on which
he disciplined members (see Appendix D).
[54]. R
Horne, House of Representatives, Debates,
17 December 1993, p. 4416.
[55]. House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, Time for Review:
Bills, questions and working hours: report of the review of procedural changes
operating since 21 February 1994, AGPS, Canberra, June 1995, pp. 27–29.
[56]. W
Tuckey, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates,
25 November 1993, p. 3641.
[57]. H
Woods, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates,
21 December 1993, p. 4501.
[58]. J
Sharp, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates,
21 December 1993, p. 4503.
[59]. D
Melham, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates,
22 June 1995, p. 2222.
[60]. He
refused to withdraw his comment that ‘... the Government at the present time are
supporting the champion murderer of the working classes in Russia generally,
namely, Koltchak.’ House of Representatives, Debates, 28 August 1919, p.
12072.
[61]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 25 June 2015.
[62]. House
of Representatives, Standing
Orders as at 26 March 2015, Department of the House of
Representatives, 2010, pp. 38–9.
[63]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
12 May 1981, p. 2258.
[64]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
19 June 1996, p. 2246.
[65]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 9 December 1996.
[66]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
9 December 1996, p. 8073. The first woman suspended from any Australian
Parliament was Florence Cardell-Oliver who was suspended from the Western
Australian Legislative Assembly on 26 October 1941 during a debate on
starting-price betting: J Ritchie, ed, Australian Dictionary of Biography,
Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic., 13, 1993, p. 365.
[67]. Parliamentary
Library estimates.
[68]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
20 March 2012, p. 3499.
[69]. G
Daley, ‘Nyuk-nyuk:
Swan’s out’, Australian Financial Review, 21 March 2012, p. 1.
[70]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 18 September 1931, p. 828.
[71]. House
of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1931, pp. 154–55.
[72]. Ibid.
[73]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
20 August 2012, p. 9114. Mr Abbott’s initial interjection was not recorded but
when he was requested to withdraw it without qualification by the Deputy
Speaker, he did so. He was thanked but then Mr Abbott added, ‘It is still an
untrue statement’. It was for this comment that he was sin binned.
[74]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
24 September 1986, p. 1316.
[75]. House
of Representatives, Debates, 1 June 1949, p. 412.
[76]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 17 December 1914, p. 148.
[77]. House
of Representatives, Debates, 17 December 1914, p. 2206; House of
Representatives, Debates, 18 December 1914, p. 2252.
[78]. House
of Representatives, Debates, 25 October 1955, p. 1886.
[79]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
7 September 1984, p. 869.
[80]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
24 June 1999, p. 7468.
[81]. W
Fife, House of Representatives, ‘Televising proceedings’, Debates,
12 February 1991, p. 316.
[82]. The
rate was even higher when Mr Slipper was in the Chair for his first 20 sitting
days from 24 November 2011 to 31 March 2012 (averaging 3.45 actions per sitting
day). After he stepped aside from occupying the Chair (but remaining as
Speaker), Deputy Speaker Anna Burke presided in the Chamber from 31 March to 9
October 2012. During this period (34 sitting days), she disciplined 46 members
at a rate of 1.35 per sitting day.
[83] Mr Smith was
re-elected as Speaker at the commencement of the 45th Parliament.
[84]. Speakership
includes actions taken by the Speaker and any other occupier of the Chair
during the Speaker’s term of office. Speaker in this table refers only to
actions taken by the Speaker, not other occupiers of the Chair.
[85]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 18 August 1910, p. 78.
[86]. House
of Representatives, Debates, 18 August 1910, p. 1749–50.
[87]. House
of Representatives, Votes
and Proceedings, 11 November 1913, p. 152.
[88]. House
of Representatives, Debates, 24 April 1931, p. 1291.
[89]. House
of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1931, p. 155.
[90]. House
of Representatives, Debates,
24 February 1994, p. 1287.
[91]. For
consistency—and because there was the suspension of two senators during the
meeting of both Houses to hear the address by US President George W Bush on 23
October 2003—similar meetings are also counted as sitting weeks, including: on
2 January 1992 to hear US President George Bush’s address; on 17 November 2011
to hear US President Barack Obama’s address; on 8 July 2014 to hear Japanese PM
Shinzo Abe’s address; on 14 November 2014 to hear British PM David Cameron’s
address; on 17 and 18 November 2014 to hear Chinese President Xi Jinping and
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Also included as another week were the
sitting days at the end of 2009, where Monday 30 November, Tuesday 1 and
Wednesday 2 December were classified as ‘resumption of the previous day’s
sitting’ but occurred in another calendar week. For the same reason Monday 29
November 2010 is included as a separate sitting week. The effect of these short
sitting weeks slightly lowers the statistical frequency of disciplinary action
against members.
[92]. 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.
[93]. T
Abbott, Press
conference, Canberra, 24 August 2010.
[94] W Truss, House
of Representatives, Debates,
12 November 2013, p. 9.
[95] In February
2012 the name of the Main Committee was changed to the Federation Chamber. As
this has been the only change to the standing orders relevant to disorder
listed in Appendix A, the title ‘Federation Chamber’ is coupled with ‘Main
Committee’ throughout the text.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.