Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
'That’s it, you’re out': disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013



Download PDFDownload PDF

RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2013-14 11 DECEMBER 2013

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 Rob Lundie

Politics and Public Administration

Executive summary • Of the 1,093 members who have served in the House of Representatives from 1901 to the end of the 43rd Parliament in August 2013, 300 (27.4%) have been named and/or suspended or ‘sin binned’ for disorderly behaviour in the Chamber. This study outlines the bases of the House’s authority to deal with disorderly

behaviour, and the procedures available to the Speaker to act on such behaviour. It then analyses the 1,352 instances of disorderly behaviour identified in the official Hansard record with a view to identifying patterns over time, and the extent and degree of such behaviour. It does not attempt to identify the reasons why disorderly behaviour occurs as they are quite complex and beyond the scope of this paper.

• The authority for the rules of conduct in the House of Representatives is derived from the Australian Constitution. The members themselves have broad responsibility for their behaviour in the House. However, it is the role of the Speaker or the occupier of the Chair to ensure that order is maintained during parliamentary proceedings. This responsibility is derived from the standing orders. Since its introduction in 1994, the ‘sin bin’ has become the disciplinary action of choice for Speakers.

• With the number of namings and suspensions decreasing in recent years, the ‘sin bin’ (being ordered from the chamber for one hour) appears to have been successful in avoiding the disruption caused by the naming and suspension procedure. However, as the number of ‘sin bin’ sanctions has increased, it may be that this penalty has contributed to greater disorder because members may view it as little more than a slap on the wrist and of little deterrent value.

• Most disorderly behavior (90%) occurs during Question Time and in the parliamentary proceedings which often take place during or just after it. Such behaviour also tends to increase daily as the sitting week progresses.

• Front benchers and parliamentary office holders account for about 57% of instances of disorderly behaviour. Opposition members are sanctioned 90% of the time no matter which party occupies that role. No prime minister has been sanctioned for disorderly behaviour but two deputy prime ministers and seven opposition leaders have, although not all have been ordered from the House. Christopher Pyne leads the list of members most disciplined on 45 followed by Anthony Albanese on 34. Women members have accounted for 15% of disciplinary actions since they first entered Parliament in 1943.

• Members were disciplined most frequently under the Speakership of Peter Slipper followed by Anna Burke, David Hawker and Harry Jenkins.

• On four measures of disorderly behaviour (number of disciplinary actions, number of sitting weeks in which a member was disciplined, number of days when four or more members were disciplined, number of different members disciplined), the Rudd/Gillard Parliaments (42nd and 43rd, 2008-2013) were more disorderly than the Howard Parliaments (38th to 41st, 1996-2007). The most disorderly Parliament was the 43rd.

ISSN 2203-5249

Contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................ 4

Authority of the House and the Speaker to manage disorderly behaviour ..... 4

The Constitution ................................................................................................. 4

Powers of the Speaker ........................................................................................ 4

Categories of Disorderly Conduct ................................................................. 5

Gross disorder by a member .............................................................................. 5

Grave disorder in the House ............................................................................... 5

Disorder in the Federation Chamber/Main Committee ................................. 6

Penalties for Disorderly Conduct .................................................................. 7

Matter not proceeded ........................................................................................ 7

Expulsion............................................................................................................. 8

Naming and Suspension ..................................................................................... 8

Suspension by resolution of the House .............................................................. 9

Directed to withdraw from the Chamber for one hour (‘Sin Bin’) ................... 10

Effectiveness of the sanctions on disorderly behaviour in maintaining order 11

Periods spent out of the Chamber ............................................................... 13

Removal from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms ...................................... 14

Reasons for disciplinary actions .................................................................. 14

Patterns of disciplinary action ..................................................................... 15

When disorder most occurs ............................................................................. 15

Disciplinary actions across the sitting fortnight ............................................. 15

Who receives disciplinary action for disorderly behaviour ............................ 15

Number and list of members disciplined ......................................................... 15

Disciplinary actions by gender .......................................................................... 17

Disciplinary actions against parties in Government and Opposition ............... 18

Position/office of members disciplined ............................................................ 19

Disciplinary actions against members by each State and Territory ................. 20

External factors which may affect disorderly behaviour ............................... 20

Televising of Parliament ................................................................................... 20

Relocation of Parliament .................................................................................. 21

Size of the House of Representatives ............................................................... 21

Role of the Speaker .................................................................................... 21

Extent and degree of disorderly conduct ..................................................... 22

Disorderly conduct by Parliament .................................................................... 23

Frequency with which disciplinary actions were taken against members ....... 25

Concentration of disorderly conduct ................................................................ 26

Most Disorderly Parliament ........................................................................ 26

Appendix A: Standing Orders relating to the disciplining of Members of the House of Representatives ........................................................................... 29

Appendix B: Removal from the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms ................ 35

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 2

Appendix C: Number (%) of disciplinary actions by weekday ........................ 36

Appendix D: Comparison of disciplinary actions taken in the first and second weeks of a sitting fortnight, 1990-2013 ....................................................... 37

Appendix E: Members listed by the type and number of disciplinary actions taken against them ..................................................................................... 38

Appendix F: Proportion of disciplinary actions by state and territory compared to the proportion of seats ........................................................... 45

Appendix G: Disciplinary actions by Speakership ......................................... 45

Acknowledgements

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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 3

Introduction From 1901 to the end of the 43rd Parliament in August 2013, 300 different members and two senators have been disorderly enough during proceedings of the House of Representatives as to result in disciplinary action1 by the Speaker.2 This study outlines the bases of the House’s authority to deal with disorderly behaviour, and the procedures available to the Speaker to act on such behaviour. It then analyses the 1,352 instances of disorderly behaviour recorded in Hansard with a view to identifying patterns over time, the extent and degree of disorderly behaviour, and answering questions such as: which members have been disciplined and which parliament has been the most disorderly?3 It does not analyse the reasons behind such behaviour as they are quite complex and beyond the scope of this paper. All tables have been compiled by the author.

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

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

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

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

From 1994 the Speaker was given the power (SO 94(a)) to direct a member to withdraw from the House for one hour (the ‘sin bin’). No motion or action is required by the House but if a member fails to leave the Chamber

1. The term ‘disciplinary action’ is used in this paper to cover three 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’). It does not include behaviour which may ordinarily be seen as disruptive or disorderly e.g. interjecting, unless it is sanctioned in the ways mentioned above. 2. In this paper the term ‘Speaker’ includes their deputy and whoever is occupying the Chair. 3. In 1994 a new penalty for disorderly behaviour was introduced 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. 4. 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.’ 5. 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.’ 6. Unless otherwise stated the paper refers to the current 2010 version of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 4

immediately or continues to behave in a disorderly manner they may be named and the House can then suspend them.

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

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

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

(a) persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;

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

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

(d) wilfully disobeyed an order of the House;

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

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

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

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

Gross disorder by a member8 If the Speaker determines that there is an urgent need to protect the dignity of the House, they can order a grossly disorderly member to leave the Chamber immediately (SO 94(c)). When the member has left, the Speaker must immediately name the member and put the question for suspension without a motion being necessary. If the question is resolved in the negative, the member may return to the Chamber.

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

Grave disorder in the House9 If grave disorder occurs in the House, the Speaker, without any question being put, can suspend the sitting and state the time at which they will resume the Chair; or adjourn the House to the next sitting (SO 95). On 12 occasions when grave disorder has occurred the Speaker has either suspended the sitting or adjourned the House until the next sitting.

7. P Slipper, ‘Parliamentary Office Holders: Deputy Speaker’, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 November 2011, p.13794, accessed 7 September 2013. 8. House of Representatives Practice, 6th ed, 2012, p.541, accessed 7 September 2013. 9. House of Representatives Practice, 6th ed, 2012, p.541, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 5

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

• On 4 July 1919 the House was suspended for 15 minutes when disorder arose when Michael Considine (ALP, Barrier, NSW) refused to withdraw certain disorderly expressions. He had called the Government ‘a gang of murdering thieves’. When the sitting resumed, he still refused to withdraw the expressions despite appeals from the Speaker and the Deputy Prime Minister. He was named and suspended for one week as this was his second suspension.10

• On 9 April 1970 the House was suspended for just over half an hour after grave disorder arose when Gordon Bryant (ALP, Wills, Vic.) refused to leave the Chamber after having been named and suspended. He further refused when the House resumed and so the Speaker suspended the House till later in the morning. This time on the resumption of the sitting, Mr Bryant agreed to leave the Chamber and did so after he expressed regret that he had defied the Chair and apologised.11

• On 22 February 2008 the House was suspended for just over an hour when Luke Hartsuyker (NP, Cowper, NSW) refused to leave the Chamber after having been directed to leave for one hour and later named. The motion to suspend him had not been voted on.12

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

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

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

• Mark Latham (ALP, Werriwa, NSW) was named and suspended on 31 October 1996 for having disregarded the authority of and reflected on the Chair. There had been many interjections during debate as to whether or not the Euthanasia Laws Bill should be debated in the Main Committee or in the House. Mr Latham had called for ‘a bit of order’ and then when the Deputy Speaker suggested that he might also be orderly, Latham had replied that he could do anything he liked in the Main Committee because ‘there are no procedures here’.14

• Wayne Swan (ALP, Lilley, Qld) was named and suspended on 8 February 2001 for having ‘persisted in disorderly behaviour by continuing to interject after being called to order, and thus defied the chair’.15

• Anthony Albanese (ALP, Grayndler, NSW) was named and suspended on 21 March 2002 for having, the previous day, ‘persisted in disorderly behaviour by refusing to withdraw a remark [that the Government had told lies about the children overboard issue] after being called to order and thus defied the Chair of the Main Committee’.16

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, p. 1281-3, accessed 7 September 2013.

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, October 2006, para 1.36, accessed 7 September 2013. 14. Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 1996-98, pp. 751, 765. House of Representatives, Debates, 31 October 1996, p. 6346, accessed 6 December 2013. 15. Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 1998-2001, pp. 2076-7, 2090. 16. Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 2002-04, p. 135; House of Representatives, Debates, 20 March 2002, p.1830,

accessed 7 September 2013. On report of the matter to the House the offending member was named and suspended. Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 2002-04, p. 137.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 6

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

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

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

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

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

• On the first occasion (14 October 1938) Rowland James (ALP, Hunter, NSW) was named because he refused to withdraw ‘certain words’ but instead ‘hurled further abusive epithets at the honourable member for Macquarie’. Speaker George Bell (UAP, Darwin, Tas.) refused to allow the Treasurer to make an appeal on his behalf and the motion to suspend was put. However, the motion was lost (19-24) when the Government did not have sufficient numbers present to ensure its passage. Unlike a later occasion when a motion to suspend was defeated, there was no suggestion that the Speaker should resign.18

• On the second occasion (27 February 1975) the Minister for Labor and Immigration in the Whitlam Labor government, Clyde Cameron (ALP, Hindmarsh, SA), was named by Speaker Jim Cope (ALP, Sydney, NSW) for ‘refusing to apologise after disregarding the authority of the Chair’. Dr Jim Forbes (LP, Barker, SA) had accused him of telling ‘a monstrous lie’ during a personal explanation. Cameron demanded its withdrawal and became frustrated when Forbes prevaricated. During the Speaker’s attempt to get Forbes to withdraw the comment unconditionally, Cameron began to interject and when the Speaker called for order, he said: ‘Look, I don’t give a damn what you say. I -’. The Speaker asked Cameron to apologise to the Chair a number of times, and then finally: ‘Is the Minister going to apologise?’ Prime Minister Gough Whitlam immediately

17. House of Representatives, Debates, 17 October 2002, p. 8047-8; p. 7973, accessed 7 September 2013. This instance was not included in this paper’s analyses because the member was neither named nor ordered to withdraw from the Main Committee. 18. House of Representatives, Debates, 14 October 1938, p. 861.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 7

responded: ‘No’. The Speaker then named Cameron and the motion to suspend was put by the Opposition, even though it is usually done by the Leader of the House. During the ensuing division Whitlam spoke to the Speaker but he refused to divulge what was said. Government members refused to vote for Cameron’s

suspension, the motion being defeated 59-55. The Speaker read the result of the division and immediately announced his own resignation. This is the only instance when the Speaker has resigned as a result of a suspension motion being defeated.19

• The third occasion happened during the time of the Gillard minority Labor Government on 31 May 2011 when Bob Baldwin (LP, Paterson, NSW) was named for interjecting after a general warning had been given from the Chair. The subsequent division was defeated 72-71 with the support of Rob Oakeshott (IND, Lyne, NSW) who had voted against the motion because he supported private members’ rights. Despite the result of the division there was no suggestion that this was a vote of no confidence in the Speaker (Harry Jenkins, ALP, Scullin, Vic.) who was widely respected and liked. To reinforce the House’s confidence in the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott (LP, Warringah, NSW) immediately put a motion of confidence in the Speaker which was supported by Prime Minister Julia Gillard (ALP, Lalor, Vic.). The motion was passed on the voices thus averting a situation where a popular Speaker felt he should resign because a suspension motion had been defeated.

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

Reason for suspension after naming not being proceeded with Number (%) of occasions when matter not proceeded with

Member having apologised or expressed regret 103 (76.3%) Member having withdrawn statement 16 (11.9%)

Speaker decides to take no further action 13 (9.6%)

Motion to suspend was negatived 3 (2.2%)

135

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

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

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

Over the years these penalties have altered as can be seen in Table 2. Major changes occurred in 1994 following two reports by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure in 1992 and 1993. The first report The Standing Orders Governing Disorder and Strangers recommended that not only should the length of

19. House of Representatives, Debates, 27 February 1975, p. 824. 20. Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 1920-21, pp. 423, 425, 431-3. 21. House of Representatives Practice, 6th ed, 2012, p. 157, accessed 7 September 2013.

22. Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, s. 8. See also E Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege (2003), pp. 213-221.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 8

the penalties for second and third suspensions be reduced from seven to three days and from 28 to seven days but that they should be for consecutive sitting not calendar days.23 In tabling the report the Hon Gordon Scholes (ALP, Corio, Vic.) said:

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

24

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

Dates First suspension Second suspension Third suspension

6 Jun 1901 to

21 Mar 1950

Remainder of the day’s sitting 1 week 1 month

21 Mar 1950 to 21 Feb 1994

24 hours 7 days excluding the day of

suspension. Any suspension in a previous Session shall be disregarded.

28 days excluding the day of suspension. Any suspension in a previous Session shall be disregarded.

21 Feb 1994 onwards 24 hours 3 consecutive sittings

excluding the day of suspension.

7 consecutive sittings excluding the day of suspension.

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

• On 11 November 1913 David McGrath (ALP, Ballaarat, Vic.) was suspended for ‘the remainder of the session’ for ‘reflecting on the Chair’. He had been accused of saying in Ballarat words ‘to the effect that the Speaker [Elliot Johnson, LP, Lang, NSW] had lost the confidence and respect of honourable members, that he had deliberately altered a Hansard proof, that he had acted in a biased manner, and was proving himself a bitter partisan.’ He declined on several occasions to admit or deny the accuracy of the press report containing the statement, not having read it. The Speaker sought to have the matter lapse but Prime Minister Joseph Cook (LP, Parramatta, NSW) proceeded with his motion to suspend him. The Clerk then read out the newspaper report. Opposition members refused to act as tellers.25 He was suspended on the motion: ‘That the honourable member for Ballaarat be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session unless he sooner unreservedly retracts the words uttered by him at Ballarat on Sunday, the 9th November, and reflecting on Mr Speaker, and apologises to the House.’26 This was the first time a member had been suspended for the remainder of the Session which meant he was suspended for 39 days until 19 December. In the next Parliament on 29 April 1915 the House resolved to expunge the resolution of suspension from the journals of the House ‘as being subversive of the right of an honourable member to freely address his constituents’.27

• On 24 February 1987 Wilson Tuckey (LP, O’Connor, WA), who was already under suspension, was further suspended for seven sitting days for having reflected on the character of the Speaker (Joan Child, ALP, Henty, Vic.) and being in contempt of the House. He had made remarks outside the House that, among other things, the Speaker was ‘a political animal’ and that she should resign.28

23. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, The Standing Orders Governing Disorder and Strangers, October 1992, pp. 8-9, accessed 7 September 2013. 24. G Scholes, Procedure Committee Report, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 October 1992, p. 2195, accessed 7 September 2013. 25. Tellers are Members who are appointed by the Chair to record the names of Members who are voting on each side. House of Representatives

Practice, 6th ed, 2012, p. 277, accessed 7 September 2013. 26. Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 1913, pp. 151-3, 1914-17, p. 181. 27. House of Representatives Practice, 6th ed, 2012, p. 765, accessed 7 September 2013. 28. House of Representatives, Debates, 24 February 1987, p. 573, 580-7, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 9

• On 21 December 1989 Ken Aldred (LP, Bruce, Vic.) was suspended for two sitting days, following a reference to the Privileges Committee, for refusing to withdraw an allegation against Lewis Kent (ALP, Hotham, Vic.) that he was essentially an agent of a foreign power.29

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

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

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

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

31

This report was overtaken by the 1993 federal election and another report by the same committee (About time: bills, questions and working hours—report of the inquiry into reform of the House of Representatives) was tabled on 28 October 1993. This committee accepted the earlier report’s recommendations but suggested that the

period of ejection be set at one hour and that the member also be excluded from any divisions occurring during that hour. The Government accepted both these recommendations.32 In support of its recommendations the Committee noted that the process of suspending a member is ‘time-consuming and is itself disruptive of proceedings.’ It also made the point that it saw the ‘sin bin’ as ‘a means of removing a source of disorder rather than as a punishment. It would enable a situation to be defused quickly before it deteriorated, and without disrupting proceedings to any great extent.’33

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

29. House of Representatives, Debates, 21 December 1989, pp. 3353-79, accessed 7 September 2013. 30. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, The Standing Orders Governing Disorder and Strangers, October 1992, pp. 4-5, accessed 7 September 2013. 31. G Scholes, Procedure Committee report, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 October 1992, p. 2195, accessed 7 September 2013. 32. 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. 804-5, accessed 6 December 2013. 33. 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, Canberra, AGPS, October 1993, p. 28, accessed 7 September 2013. 34. P Filing, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 October 1993, p.2711, accessed 7 September 2013; L McLeay, House of Representatives,

Debates, 28 October 1993, p. 2714, accessed 7 September 2013; R Price, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 October 1993, p. 2718, accessed 7 September 2013; J Bradford, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 December 1993, p.4519, accessed 7 September 2013. 35. J Sharp, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 December 1993, p.4503, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period Not proceeded or negatived Named and Suspended Sin binned Total

Pre-1994 132 236 Not applicable 368

Average per year (93 yrs) 1.4 2.5 Not applicable 4.0

Post-1994 3 74 907 984

Average per year (20 yrs) 0.2 3.7 45.4 49.2

Total 135 310 907 1,352

36. I Sinclair, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 December 1993, p. 4412, accessed 7 September 2013. 37. I Sinclair, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 February 1994, p. 819, accessed 7 September 2013. 38. R Horne, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 December 1993, p. 4416, accessed 7 September 2013. 39. 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, June 1995, p. 27-9, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 11

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

Year Not proceeded or negatived Suspended Sin binned Total

1994 1 5 6

1995 5 11 16

1996 6 9 15

1997 6 33 39

1998 3 23 26

1999 1 2 29 32

2000 3 37 40

2001 1 6 37 44

2002 4 20 24

2003 8 39 47

2004 4 25 29

2005 1 55 56

2006 4 94 98

2007 3 63 66

2008 5 53 58

2009 7 62 69

2010 2 50 52

2011 1 3 86 90

2012 1 126 127

2013 to Aug 0 50 50

Total 3 74 907 984

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

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

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

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

So, whether or not SO 94(a) has had any effect on controlling disorderly behavior is difficult to determine and in fact it may be unrealistic to expect any such penalty or the actions of any one person, the Speaker, to manage it.

40. W Tuckey, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 November 1993, p. 3641, accessed 7 September 2013. 41. H Woods, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 December 1993, p. 4501, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 12

It may be that only the will of the Parliament can ensure how orderly or disorderly its proceedings are. As John Sharp (NPA, Hume, NSW) said in 1993:

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

42

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

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

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

43

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

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

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

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

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

42. J Sharp, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 December 1993, p. 4503, accessed 7 September 2013. 43. D Melham, ‘Procedure Committee report’, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 June 1995, p. 2222, accessed 7 September 2013. 44. 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.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 13

Table 5: Time periods spent out of the Chamber

Time Period Number (%) of disciplinary actions

1 hour (‘sin bin’) 907 (67.1)

Remainder of day’s sitting 89 (6.6)

24 hours 196 (14.5)

2 sitting days including today (House resolution) 1 (0.1)

Remainder of day’s sitting and next 3 sitting days 3 (0.2)

1 week; 7 days; Remainder of day’s sitting and next 7 consecutive days 18 (1.3) 7 sitting days including today (House resolution) 1 (0.1)

1 month 1 (0.1)

Remainder of session (House resolution) 1 (0.1)

None as matter not proceeded with 132 (9.8)

None as motion to suspend negatived 3 (0.2)

1,352

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

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

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

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

45. House of Representatives, Standing and Sessional Orders as at 20 October 2010, Department of the House of Representatives, 2010, p. 38-9.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 14

Table 6: Reasons for disciplinary action by Parliament

Reason for disciplinary action 38th

Parl.

39th Parl.

40th Parl.

41st Parl.

42nd Parl.

43rd Parl.

Total

Abusing the forms of the House eg raising frivolous points of order 5 3 0 1 27 23 59

Defying or disregarding the authority of the Chair 5 2 6 3 8 4 28

Disorderly conduct 5 7 4 36 53 29 134

Interjecting 48 108 80 177 78 222 713

Reflecting on the Chair or a member 0 2 5 1 1 0 9

Refusing to resume their seat 5 0 0 0 1 0 6

Refusing to withdraw a remark or expression 3 1 2 4 0 0 10

Refusing to withdraw from the Chamber 2 0 0 1 0 0 3

Total 73 123 97 223 168 278 962

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

Table 7: Number of instances of disorder by type of parliamentary proceeding from 1994 to 2013 Parliamentary Proceedings Number (%) of instances of disorderly conduct

Question Time 766 (77.8)

Matters of Public Importance (MPI) 54 (5.5)

Censure Motions 29 (2.9)

Motions to suspend standing orders 23 (2.3)

Questions to the Speaker 20 (2.0)

Personal Explanations 19 (1.9)

Bills 20 (2.0)

Other 53 (5.4)

Total 984

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

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

Who receives disciplinary action for disorderly behaviour Number and list of members disciplined Of the 1,093 members who have served in Parliament since 1901, 300 (27.4%) have been named and/or suspended or ‘sin binned’. This does not include two Greens senators (Bob Brown (AG, Tas.) and Kerry Nettle (AG, NSW)) who were suspended during a joint sitting of both Houses in the House of Representatives chamber

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 15

to hear an address by US President George W. Bush on 23 October 2003. Table 8 lists the members who have had 10 or more disciplinary actions taken against them. The full table of all members, Including the two senators, who have been disciplined is contained in Appendix E.

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

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

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

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

Member and Party Not proceeded Negatived Suspended Sin binned Total

Pyne, Christopher (LP) 2 43 45

Albanese, Anthony (ALP) 4 30 34

Tuckey, Wilson (LP) 1 14 16 31

Irwin, Julia (ALP) 2 28 30

Hockey, Joe (LP) 27 27

Tanner, Lindsay (ALP) 2 25 27

Dutton, Peter (LP) 26 26

Laming, Andrew (LP) 1 19 20

Crean, Simon (ALP) 3 17 20

Fitzgibbon, Joel (ALP) 2 17 19

O’Keefe, Neil (ALP) 1 18 19

Ripoll, Bernie (ALP) 18 18

Plibersek, Tanya (ALP) 17 17

Bishop, Bronwyn (LP) 17 17

Kerr, Duncan (ALP) 17 17

Ward, Eddie (ALP) 1 16 17

Simpkins, Luke (LP) 16 16

Snowdon, Warren (ALP) 2 14 16

Crosio, Janice (ALP) 15 15

Swan, Wayne (ALP) 4 11 15

Robert, Stuart (LP) 1 13 14

Randall, Don (LP) 14 14

Morrison, Scott (LP) 1 13 14

James, Rowland (ALP) 10 1 3 14

Bevis, Arch (ALP) 2 11 13

Briggs, Jamie (LP) 13 13

Jones, Ewen (LP) 13 13

Emerson, Craig (ALP) 1 11 12

Hunt, Greg (LP) 12 12

Mirabella, Sophie (LP) 1 11 12

Latham, Mark (ALP) 2 9 11

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 16

Member and Party Not proceeded Negatived Suspended Sin binned Total

Wilkie, Kim (ALP) 11 11

Christensen, George (NP) 11 11

McLeay, Leo (ALP) 4 7 11

O’Connor, Brendan (ALP) 11 11

O’Connor, Gavan (ALP) 2 9 11

Adams, Dick (ALP) 2 9 11

Wentworth, William (LP) 10 10

Ferguson, Martin (ALP) 3 7 10

Haylen, Les (ALP) 2 8 10

Champion, Nick (ALP) 10 10

Zahra, Christian (ALP) 1 9 10

Jensen, Dennis (LP) 1 9 10

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

Table 9: Disciplinary actions by gender

Gender Number (%) of members disciplined

Number (%) of occasions when named but not proceeded with or negatived

Number (%) of occasions when named and suspended

Number (%) of occasions when sin binned

Total number (%) of disciplinary actions

Female 37* (12.3) 1 (0.7) 8 (2.6) 182 (20.1) 191 (14.1)

Male 265* (87.7) 134 (99.3) 302 (97.4) 725 (79.9) 1,161 (85.9)

Total 302 135 310 907 1,352

*includes Senator Kerry Nettle and Senator Bob Brown

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

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

46. House of Representatives, Debates, 12 May 1981, p. 2258, accessed 7 September 2013. 47. House of Representatives, Debates, 19 June 1996, p. 2246, accessed 7 September 2013. 48. House of Representatives, Debates, 9 December 1996, p. 8073, accessed 7 September 2013. 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. [Australian Dictionary of Biography, v.13 1993, p. 365.]

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 17

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

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

Table 10: Number (%) and type of disciplinary actions taken against Government and Non-government members Members Not proceeded with

or negatived

Suspended Sin binned Total

Government 22 (16.3%) 25 (8.1%) 79 (8.7%) 126 (9.3%)

Non-government 113 (83.7%) 285 (91.9%) 828 (91.3%) 1,226 (90.7%)

Total 135 310 907 1,352

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

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

Matter not

proceeded with or negatived

Suspended Sin binned Total

Coalition in Government 2 19 34 55 (9.1%)

Coalition in Opposition 38 118 394 550 (90.9%)

Total Coalition 40 (29.6%) 137 (44.2%) 428 (47.2%) 605 (44.7%)

Labor in Government 16 5 45 66 (9.2%)

Labor in Opposition 69 154 427 650 (90.8%)

Total Labor 85 (63.0%) 159 (51.3%) 472 (52.0%) 716 (53.0%)

Coalition and Labor 125 (92.6%) 296 (95.5%) 900 (99.2%) 1,321 (97.7%)

Independents and minor parties 10 (7.4%) 14 (4.5%) 7 (0.8%) 31 (2.3%)

Total 135 310 907 1,352

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

Parliament Disciplinary actions against Labor and Coalition

members when in Opposition

Total disciplinary actions

38th (30.4.1996-15.7.1998) 62 (84.9%) Labor 73

39th (10.11.1998-8.10.2001) 113 (91.9%) Labor 123

40th (12.2.2002-30.8.2004) 83 (85.6%) Labor 97

41st (16.11.2004-15.10.2007) 213 (95.5%) Labor 223

Average for Howard Governments 471 (91.3%) Labor 516

42nd (12.2.2008-19.7.2010) 151 (89.9%) Coalition 168

43rd (28.9.2010-12.8.2013) 248 (89.2%) Coalition 278

Average for Rudd/Gillard Governments 399 (89.5%) Coalition 446

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 18

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

Table 13: Disciplinary actions against members by their position Member’s position Matter not proceeded or negatived Suspended Sin binned Total

Backbencher 70 (12.6%) 145 (26.0%) 342 (61.4%) 557 (41.2%)

Crossbencher 10 (33.3%) 14 (46.7%) 6 (20.0%) 30 (2.2%)

Shadow minister, minister 47 (7.8%) 125 (20.7%) 431 (71.5%) 603 (44.6%)

Parliamentary Office Holder 8 (4.9%) 26 (16.0%) 128 (79.0%) 162 (12.0%)

135 (10.0%) 310 (22.9%) 907 (67.1%) 1,352

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

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

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

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

• On 20 August 2012 Tony Abbott (LP, Warringah, NSW) was ‘sin binned’ by the Deputy Speaker, Anna Burke (ALP, Chisholm, Vic.) for disorderly behaviour. He had failed to withdraw an unparliamentary remark without qualification when asked to do so. He was the first Leader of the Opposition sent from the House under SO 94(a).51

• On 24 September 1986 John Howard (LP, Bennelong, NSW) was named and suspended for disregarding the authority of the Chair. He had refused to withdraw an allegation against the Treasurer that he had uttered a ‘parliamentary lie’.52

49. House of Representatives, Debates, 20 March 2012, p. 3499, accessed 7 September 2013. 50. House of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1931, p. 155. 51. House of Representatives, Debates, 20 August 2012, p. 9114, accessed 7 September 2013. 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’. 52. House of Representatives, Debates, 24 September 1986, p. 1316, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 19

• On 1 June 1949 Robert Menzies (LP, Kooyong, Vic.) was named and suspended for persistently interjecting during a speech by Arthur Calwell (ALP, Melbourne, Vic.). Despite intercessions from Mr Calwell, the Speaker insisted Mr Menzies be suspended.53

• In the early hours of 18 December 1914 Joseph Cook (LP, Parramatta, NSW) was named and suspended from the service of the House ‘until he returns with Mr Speaker’s consent and apologises to Mr Speaker’ for ‘rising and continuing his address to the House though called to order by Mr Speaker, and using language which Mr Speaker considered an insult to the Chair’. Later that day he sent a letter of apology to the Speaker and was permitted to return to the chamber.54

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

• On 25 October 1955 Bert Evatt (ALP, Barton, NSW) was ordered to leave the chamber by the Deputy Speaker for having continued to interject after warnings had been given by the Chair. He immediately apologised and was not required to withdraw from the House.55

• On 7 September 1984 Andrew Peacock (LP, Kooyong, Vic.) was named by the Speaker for defying the Chair. He had insisted on making a statement in response to Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s additional answer to an earlier question without notice. Following intercession from Leader of the House, Mick Young (ALP, Port Adelaide, SA), who was reluctant to put the motion for suspension, it was agreed that there was some misunderstanding about procedure, and so the Speaker agreed to let the matter rest.56

• On 24 June 1999 Kim Beazley (ALP, Brand, WA) was ‘sin binned’ for interjecting in a disorderly manner. The Speaker had previously issued a general warning and ordered out three members. Michael Lee (ALP, Dobell, NSW) asked the Speaker to reconsider his ruling which he agreed to do if Mr Beazley apologised. This he did and was not required to leave the chamber.57

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

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

53. House of Representatives, Debates, 1 June 1949, p. 412. 54. House of Representatives, Debates, 18 December 1914, pp. 2206, 2252. 55. House of Representatives, Debates, 25 October 1955, p. 1886. 56. House of Representatives, Debates, 7 September 1984, p. 869, accessed 7 September 2013.

57. House of Representatives, Debates, 24 June 1999, p. 7468, accessed 7 September 2013. 58. W Fife, House of Representatives, ‘Televising proceedings’, Debates, 12 February 1991, p. 316, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Chair are listed in Appendix G.

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

59. The rate (3.45) was even higher when Mr Slipper was in the Chair for his first 20 sitting days from 24 November 2011 to 31 March 2012. 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.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 21

Table 14: Disciplinary actions by Speakership60

Speaker Disciplinary

actions per Speaker

Disciplinary actions per Speakership

Sitting Days per Speakership

Disciplinary actions per sitting days

Holder, Sir Frederick 9.5.1901-23.7.1909 2 2 791# .003

Salmon, Charles 28.7.1909-19.2.1910 0 0 74 .000

McDonald, Charles 1.7.1910-23.4.1913 6 6 249 .024

Johnson, William 9.7.1913-30.7.1914 5 5 108 .046

McDonald, Charles 8.10.1914-26.3.1917 3 4 147 .027

Johnson, William 14.6.1917-6.11.1922 7 18 433 .042

Watt, William 28.2.1923-3.10.1925 2 6 171 .035

Groom, Sir Littleton 13.1.1926-16.9.1929 2 7 245 .029

Makin, Norman 20.11.1929-27.11.1931 14 25 206 .121

Mackay, George 17.2.1932-7.8.1934 5 14 154 .091

Bell, George 23.10.1934-27.8.1940 14 23 323 .071

Nairn, Walter 20.11.1940-21.6.1943 0 4 140 .029

Rosevear, John 22.6.1943-31.10.1949 11 25 490 .051

Cameron, Archie 22.2.1950-9.8.1956 28 42 424 .099

McLeay, John 29.8.1956-31.10.1966 28 48 655 .073

Aston, William 21.2.1967-2.11.1972 14 18 387 .047

Cope, James 27.2.1973-27.2.1975 19 28 155* .181

Scholes, Gordon 27.2.1975-11.11.1975 2 6 61** .098

Snedden, Billy 17.2.1976-4.2.1983 13 24 456 .053

Jenkins, Dr Henry 21.4.1983-20.12.1985 14 16 167 .096

Child, Joan 11.2.1986-28.8.1989 12 20 251 .080

McLeay, Leo 29.8.1989-8.2.1993 16 22 191 .115

Martin, Stephen 4.5.1993-29.1.1996 24 27 184 .147

Halverson, Robert 30.4.1996-3.3.1998 51 55 139 .396

Sinclair, Ian 4.3.1998-31.8.1998 16 18 37 .486

Andrew, Neil 10.11.1998-31.8.2004 192 220 406 .542

Hawker, David 16.11.2004-17.10.2007 188 223 196 1.138

Jenkins, Harry 12.2.2008-24.11.2011 252 265 256 1.035

Slipper, Peter 24.11.2011-9.10.2012 67 115 54 2.130

Burke, Anna 9.10.2012-12.8.2013 66 66 44 1.500

Total 1,073 1,352 7,611 .178

#Does not include the sitting day after Speaker Holder died

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

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

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

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

60. 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 just to the actions taken by the Speaker, not other occupiers of the Chair.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disciplinary actions increased markedly from the 37th to the 43rd Parliament (1993 to 2013) due to the introduction of the ‘sin bin’ sanction for disorderly conduct in 1994. Wilson Tuckey became the first member to

61. House of Representatives, Debates, 24 April 1931, p. 1291. 62. House of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1931, p. 155.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 23

be ‘sin binned’ on 24 February 1994 when he was ordered from the Chamber for one hour for ‘not resuming his seat when directed to do so’. He had interjected three times during a speech by Prime Minister Paul Keating.63

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

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

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

Table 15: Disciplinary actions by Parliament Parliament Number Named but not proceeded or negatived Suspended Sin binned Total 1 9.5.1901-11.11.1903 0 0 0 0

2 2.3.1904-26.10.1906 0 0 0 0

3 20.2.1907-18.1.1910 2 0 0 2

4 1.7.1910-8.1.1913 4 2 0 6

5 9.7.1913-27.6.1914 1 4 0 5

6 8.10.1914-20.3.1917 0 4 0 4

7 14.6.1917-28.10.1919 2 8 0 10

8 26.2.1920-18.10.1922 0 8 0 8

9 28.2.1923-28.9.1925 3 3 0 6

10 13.1.1926-22.9.1928 2 1 0 3

11 6.2.1929-12.9.1929 3 1 0 4

12 20.11.1929-26.11.1931 22 3 0 25

13 17.2.1932-2.8.1934 7 7 0 14

14 23.10.1934-15.9.1937 3 8 0 11

15 30.11.1937-22.8.1940 6 (includes one negatived) 5 0 11

16 20.11.1940-1.7.1943 5 0 0 5

17 23.9.1943-9.8.1946 2 9 0 11

18 6.11.1946-27.10.1949 1 13 0 14

19 22.2.1950-16.3.1951 4 8 0 12

20 12.6.1951-14.4.1954 1 11 0 12

21 4.8.1954-28.10.1955 3 13 0 16

22 15.2.1956-2.10.1958 0 10 0 10

23 17.2.1959-27.10.1961 8 10 0 18

24 20.2.1962-30.10.1963 5 3 0 8

25 25.2.1964-28.10.1966 3 11 0 14

26 21.2.1967-26.9.1969 1 5 0 6

27 25.11.1969-31.10.1972 5 7 0 12

28 27.2.1973-10.4.1974 2 12 0 14

29 9.7.1974-11.11.1975 12 (includes one negatived) 8 0 20

30 17.2.1976-9.11.1977 3 2 0 5

31 21.2.1978-18.9.1980 5 6 0 11

32 25.11.1980-16.12.1982 3 5 0 8

33 21.4.1983-24.10.1984 6 7 0 13

34 21.2.1985-5.6.1987 2 14 0 16

35 14.9.1987-22.12.1989 0 10 0 10

36 8.5.1990-18.12.1992 6 13 0 19

63. House of Representatives, Debates, 24 February 1994, p. 1287, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 24

Parliament Number Named but not proceeded or negatived Suspended Sin binned Total 37 4.5.1993-30.11.1995 0 11 16 27

38 30.4.1996-15.7.1998 0 15 58 73

39 10.11.1998-8.10.2001 2 11 110 123

40 12.2.2002-30.8.2004 0 16 81 97

41 16.11.2004-15.10.2007 0 8 215 223

42 12.2.2008-19.7.2010 0 14 154 168

43 28.9.2010-12.8.2013 1 (includes one negatived) 4 273 278

Total 135 (includes three negatived) 310 907 1,352

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

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

Table 16: Number and percentage of sitting weeks in which members were disciplined 1990-2013 Year No. of sitting weeks

64 No. (%) of weeks in which members were disciplined

1990 12 3 (25.0)

1991 21 3 (14.3)

1992 19 10 (52.6)

1993 14 4 (28.6)

1994 18 5 (27.8)

1995 18 9 (50.0)

1996 16 9 (56.3)

1997 20 18 (90.0)

1998 15 11 (73.3)

1999 19 16 (84.2)

2000 19 15 (78.9)

2001 15 13 (86.7)

2002 18 13 (72.2)

2003 20 15 (75.0)

2004 16 12 (75.0)

2005 18 17 (94.4)

2006 18 15 (83.3)

2007 14 13 (92.9)

2008 18 16 (88.9)

2009 19 15 (78.9)

2010 16 15 (93.8)

2011 18 16 (88.9)

2012 17 17 (100.0)

64. 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, the similar meeting on 2 January 1992 to hear US President George Bush’s address has been included. 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 is to statistically slightly lower the frequency of disciplinary action against members.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 25

Year No. of sitting weeks

64 No. (%) of weeks in which members were disciplined

2013 (to August) 9 9 (100.0)

Total 407 289 (71.0)

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

Table 17: Number of days on which four or more MPs were disciplined by Speakership Speakership No. of days on

which 4+ MPs were disciplined

No. of days when any MP was disciplined

% of days when 4+ MPs were disciplined

No. of sitting days under each Speakership

% of sitting days when 4+ MPs were disciplined

Cameron, Archie 22.2.1950-9.8.1956

1 34 2.9 424 0.2

Martin, Stephen 4.5.1993-29.1.1996

1 23 4.3 184 0.5

Andrew, Neil 10.11.1998-31.8.2004 7 144 4.9 406 1.7

Hawker, David 16.11.2004-17.10.2007 17 92 18.5 196 8.7

Jenkins, Harry 12.2.2008-24.11.2011 16 134 11.9 256 6.3

Slipper, Peter 24.11.2011-9.10.2012 13 41 31.7 54 24.1

Burke, Anna 9.10.2012-12.8.13

6 28 21.4 44 13.6

61 496

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

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

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

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

65. It should be noted that Anna Burke took the Chair when Speaker Slipper stepped aside from May to October 2012 although he was still officially The Speaker. During this period four of the occasions when four or more members were disciplined occurred whilst Anna Burke occupied the Chair. 66. T Abbott, Press conference, Canberra, 24 August 2010, accessed 7 September 2013.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disciplinary actions

Percentage of sitting weeks in which a member was disciplined

Number (%) of all disciplinary days where 4+ members were disciplined

Number (%) of different members disciplined

38th (30.4.1996-15.7.1998) 73 74.5% 0 (0.0%) 34 (23%)

39th (10.11.1998-8.10.2001) 123 82.5% 5 (6.6%) 43 (29.1%)

40th (12.2.2002-30.8.2004) 97 74.5% 2 (2.9%) 39 (26%)

41st (16.11.2004-15.10.2007) 223 88.7% 17 (18.5%) 54 (36%)

Average per Howard Governments 129 80.1% 6 (7.0%) 42.5 (28.5%)

42nd (12.2.2008-19.7.2010) 168 87.2% 8 (9.3%) 42 (28%)

43rd (28.9.2010-12.8.2013) 278 95.9% 27 (23.1%) 61 (40.7%)

Average per Rudd/Gillard Governments 223 91.6% 17.5 (16.2%) 51.5 (34.3%)

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

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

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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 27

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

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

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

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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 28

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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 29

SO No.

Period of Operation and Text

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 1 st day of January and

ending on the 31 st 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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 30

SO No.

Period of Operation and Text

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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 31

SO No.

Period of Operation and Text

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

Disorder

60 Order kept by Speaker or Chair The Speaker, or the occupier of the Chair of the House at the time shall keep order in the House. The Deputy Speaker, or the occupier of the Chair of the Main Committee at the time shall keep order in the Committee. The House may address disorder in the Committee 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: either House of the Parliament or a Member of the Parliament; or

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 32

SO No.

Period of Operation and Text

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: persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;

used objectionable words, which he or she has refused to withdraw; persistently and wilfully refused to conform to a standing order; wilfully disobeyed an order of the House; persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Speaker; or been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly manner. 92 Intervention by Speaker

The Speaker can intervene: to prevent any personal quarrel between Members during proceedings; and when a Member’s conduct is considered offensive or disorderly.

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

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 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 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 If a Member is named and suspended, the term of the suspension shall be: 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 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 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 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 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: suspend the sitting and state the time at which he or she will resume the Chair; or

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 33

SO No.

Period of Operation and Text

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, 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

(d) 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] (a) In the Main Committee 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, 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 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.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 34

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.) He was 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.) He was interjecting and refused to be silent and was named for defying the Chair. The Chairman called upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member, who thereupon retired. As he was being escorted out of the Chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms, he told him: ‘You need not lay your hand upon me, I will walk out.’ 22 Jul 1920 Fenton, James (ALP, Maribyrnong,

Vic.)

He was 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) He was 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) He was 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.) He 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, Vic.) He 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)

Having called attention to the fact that a quorum of members was not present, and Mr Speaker having counted the House and a quorum was formed, and having been grossly disorderly by disputing the count made by the Chair.

26 Oct 1950 Haylen, Les (ALP, Parkes, NSW) Having been grossly disorderly by continuing to interject after warnings had been given by the Chair.

6 Nov 1951 Curtin, Daniel (ALP, Watson, NSW) Having been grossly disorderly by continuing to interject after a warning had been given by the Chair.

13 Mar 1953 Curtin, Daniel (ALP, Watson, NSW) Being grossly disorderly by using an unparliamentary expression.

16 Oct 1957 Cameron, Clyde (ALP, Hindmarsh, SA) Having reflected on the Chair.

16 Oct 1957 Haylen, Les (ALP, Parkes, NSW) Having interjected. 6 Sep 1961 Ward, Eddie (ALP, East Sydney, NSW) He 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. He still refused to leave and grave disorder arose which caused the Speaker to suspend the sitting. When the sitting was resumed, he again refused to leave the Chamber. Grave disorder again arose and the sitting was suspended until the next day, when he then expressed regret and withdrew from the Chamber.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 35

Date Member Circumstances of Serjeant-at-Arms being called upon

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 Chair.

16 May 1991 Tuckey, Wilson (LP, O’Connor, WA) Disorderly conduct. This was the instance where he had been famously named and suspended for referring to a relationship which Paul Keating (ALP, Blaxland, NSW) had once had with a woman called Kristine. He 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: Number (%) of disciplinary actions by weekday Weekday Not proceeded or

negatived

Suspended Sin binned TOTAL

Monday 2 (1.5%) 10 (3.2%) 111 (12.2%) 123 (9.1%)

Tuesday 30 (22%) 45 (14.5%) 220 (24.3%) 295 (21.8%)

Wednesday 35 (26.5%) 100 (32.3%) 269 (29.7% 404 (29.9%)

Thursday 52 (38.6%) 124 (40%) 303 (33.4%) 479 (35.4%)

Friday 15 (10.6%) 31 (10%) 4 (0.4%) 50 (3.7%)

Saturday 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.1%)

Total 135 310 907 1,352

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 36

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

Number (%) of consecutive weeks where the number of disciplinary actions was the same or more than the first week

1990 4 0 2 2 4 (100.0)

1991 8 0 6 2 8 (100.0)

1992 7 2 2 3 5 (71.4)

1993 6 1 2 3 5 (83.3)

1994 7 1 5 1 6 (85.7)

1995 8 4 1 3 4 (50.0)

1996 7 3 1 3 4 (57.1)

1997 9 6 0 3 3 (33.3)

1998 5 3 0 2 2 (40.0)

1999 7 4 1 2 3 (42.9)

2000 8 2 1 5 6 (75.0)

2001 5 2 2 1 3 (60.0)

2002 7 1 1 5 6 (85.7)

2003 8 2 0 6 6 (75.0)

2004 7 2 1 4 5 (71.4)

2005 8 1 1 6 7 (87.5)

2006 6 3 1 2 3 (50.0)

2007 6 2 1 3 4 (66.7)

2008 8 1 1 6 7 (87.5)

2009 8 3 0 5 5 (62.5)

2010 6 1 2 3 5 (83.3)

2011 6 3 1 2 3 (50.0)

2012 6 1 0 5 5 (83.3)

2013 (to 12 August) 4 1 1 2 3 (75.0)

Total 161 49 (30.4%) 33 (20.5%) 79 (49.1%) 112 (69.6)

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 37

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

Member and Party

Named but not proceeded Named but negatived

Named and suspended Sin binned Total

Pyne, Christopher (LP) 2 43 45

Albanese, Anthony (ALP) 4 30 34

Tuckey, Wilson (LP) 1 14 16 31

Irwin, Julia (ALP) 2 28 30

Hockey, Joe (LP) 27 27

Tanner, Lindsay (ALP) 2 25 27

Dutton, Peter (LP) 26 26

Laming, Andrew (LP) 1 19 20

Crean, Simon (ALP) 3 17 20

Fitzgibbon, Joel (ALP) 2 17 19

O’Keefe, Neil (ALP) 1 18 19

Ripoll, Bernie (ALP) 18 18

Plibersek, Tanya (ALP) 17 17

Bishop, Bronwyn (LP) 17 17

Kerr, Duncan (ALP) 17 17

Ward, Eddie (ALP) 1 16 17

Simpkins, Luke (LP) 16 16

Snowdon, Warren (ALP) 2 14 16

Crosio, Janice (ALP) 15 15

Swan, Wayne (ALP) 4 11 15

Robert, Stuart (LP) 1 13 14

Randall, Don (LP) 14 14

Morrison, Scott (LP) 1 13 14

James, Rowland (ALP) 10 1 3 14

Bevis, Arch (ALP) 2 11 13

Briggs, Jamie (LP) 13 13

Jones, Ewen (LP) 13 13

Emerson, Craig (ALP) 1 11 12

Hunt, Greg (LP) 12 12

Mirabella, Sophie (LP)* 1 11 12

Latham, Mark (ALP) 2 9 11

Wilkie, Kim (ALP) 11 11

Christensen, George (NP) 11 11

McLeay, Leo (ALP) 4 7 11

O’Connor, Brendan (ALP) 11 11

O’Connor, Gavan (ALP) 2 9 11

Adams, Dick (ALP) 2 9 11

Wentworth, William (LP) 10 10

Ferguson, Martin (ALP) 3 7 10

Haylen, Les (ALP) 2 8 10

Champion, Nick (ALP) 10 10

Zahra, Christian (ALP) 1 9 10

Jensen, Dennis (LP) 1 9 10

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 38

Member and Party

Named but not proceeded Named but negatived

Named and suspended Sin binned Total

Baldwin, Bob (LP) 1 1 7 9

Smith, Tony (LP) 9 9

King, Catherine (ALP) 9 9

Pollard, Reg (ALP) 4 4 8

Bishop, Julie (LP) 8 8

Hoare, Kelly (ALP) 8 8

Katter, Bob Carl (NP, IND) 2 2 4 8

Griffin, Alan (ALP) 1 7 8

Abbott, Tony (LP) 1 7 8

Uren, Tom (ALP) 2 5 7

Robb, Andrew (LP) 7 7

Anthony, Hubert (CP) 2 5 7

Gillard, Julia (ALP) 1 6 7

McCormack, Michael (NP) 7 7

Edwards, Graham (ALP) 7 7

Vamvakinou, Maria (ALP) 7 7

O’Dwyer, Kelly (LP) 7 7

Downer, Alexander (LP) 1 2 4 7

Haase, Barry (LP) 2 5 7

Blakeley, Arthur (ALP) 3 4 7

Aldred, Ken (LP) 6 6

Ciobo, Steve (LP) 1 5 6

Danby, Michael (ALP) 6 6

Fraser, Allan (ALP) 2 4 6

Cameron, Clyde (ALP) 2 1 3 6

Curtin, Daniel (ALP) 6 6

Lindsay, Peter (LP) 1 4 5

Slipper, Peter (LP) 3 2 5

Schultz, Alby (LP) 5 5

Hayden, Bill (ALP) 2 3 5

Fenton, James (ALP) 4 1 5

Higgs, William (ALP) 2 3 5

Hale, Damian (ALP)

5 5

Gabb, Joel (ALP, UAP) 2 3 5

Sinclair, Ian (NP) 2 3 5

Jones, Charlie (ALP) 3 2 5

Cairns, Jim (ALP) 1 4 5

Considine, Michael (ALP) 5 5

Hartsuyker, Luke (NP) 2 3 5

Corser, Bernard (CP) 2 3 5

McGauran, Peter (NP) 1 3 1 5

Macklin, Jenny (ALP) 4 4

Hawke, Alex (LP) 4 4

Roxon, Nicola (ALP) 4 4

Horne, Bob (ALP) 4 4

Chester, Darren (NP) 1 3 4

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 39

Member and Party

Named but not proceeded Named but negatived

Named and suspended Sin binned Total

Billson, Bruce (LP) 4 4

Fletcher, Paul (LP) 1 3 4

Goodluck, Bruce (LP) 3 1 4

Calder, Stephen (NP) 3 1 4

Keating, Paul (ALP) 2 2 4

Kernot, Cheryl (ALP) 1 3 4

Eldridge, John (LANG LAB) 3 1 4

Everingham, Paul (LP) 1 2 3

Riley, Edward C (ALP) 2 1 3

Owens, Julie (ALP) 3 3

Green, Roland (CP) 2 1 3

Bird, Sharon (ALP) 3 3

Cope, Jim (ALP) 1 2 3

Costello, Peter (LP) 1 2 3

Hodgman, Michael (LP) 3 3

Price, Roger (ALP) 3 3

Kelly, Mike (ALP) 3 3

Hall, Jill (ALP) 3 3

Dawkins, John (ALP) 1 2 3

Cameron, Archie (CP, LP) 3 3

Howard, John (LP) 3 3

Edmonds, William (ALP) 3 3

Draper, Trish (LP) 3 3

Brennan, Frank (ALP) 3 3

Lee, Michael (ALP) 3 3

Johnson, Les (ALP) 2 1 3

Anthony, Doug (NP) 1 2 3

Brown, Neil (LP) 3 3

Mahoney, Gerald (ALP) 3 3

Riordan, David (ALP) 2 1 3

Mathews, James (ALP) 3 3

Southcott, Andrew (LP) 3 3

Dreyfus, Mark (ALP) 3 3

Thomson, Kelvin (ALP) 3 3

Bailey, Fran (LP) 3 3

Tudge, Alan (LP) 3 3

Nixon, Peter (NP) 3 3

O’Byrne, Michelle (ALP) 3 3

Page, James (ALP) 2 1 3

McEwen, John (CP) 1 1 2

Mitchell, Rob (ALP) 2 2

Irons, Steve (LP) 2 2

Lewis, Austin (ALP) 2 2

Brown, Sen Bob (AG) 1 1 2

Griggs, Natasha (CLP) 2 2

Burke, Thomas (ALP) 2 2

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 40

Member and Party

Named but not proceeded Named but negatived

Named and suspended Sin binned Total

Lusher, Stephen (NP) 1 1 2

Duthie, Gilbert (ALP) 2 2

Catts, James (ALP) 2 2

Gallus, Christine (LP) 2 2

Lyons, Geoff (ALP) 2 2

Sidebottom, Sid (ALP) 2 2

Chaney, Fred M (LP) 2 2

Evans, Richard (LP) 2 2

Cameron, Ross (LP) 2 2

Spender, Percy (LP) 2 2

Garland, Vic (LP) 2 2

Thomas, Josiah (ALP) 1 1 2

Clark, Joseph (ALP) 1 1 2

McMullan, Bob (ALP) 2 2

Whitlam, Gough (ALP) 1 1 2

van Manen, Bert (LP) 2 2

Makin, Norman (ALP) 2 2

Nettle, Sen Kerry (AG) 1 1 2

Anstey, Frank (ALP) 1 1 2

Sercombe, Bob (ALP) 2 2

Fraser, Jim (ALP) 2 2

Burke, Anna (ALP) 2 2

Maloney, William (ALP) 1 1 2

Harrison, Eli (ALP) 2 2

Marino, Nola (LP) 2 2

Smith, Stephen (ALP) 2 2

Bryant, Gordon (ALP) 1 1 2

Wilton, Greg (ALP) 2 2

George, Jennie (ALP) 2 2

Gambaro, Teresa (LP) 2 2

Lazzarini, Hubert (LANG LAB) 1 1 2

Tehan, Dan (LP) 2 2

Bryson, William (ALP) 2 2

Thompson, Cameron (LP) 2 2

Evans, Gareth (ALP) 2 2

Truss, Warren (NP) 2 2

Buchholz, Scott (LP) 2 2

Daly, Fred (ALP) 1 1 2

Cox, David (ALP) 1 1 2

Frydenberg, Josh (LP) 2 2

Roy, Wyatt (LP) 2 2

Bowen, Chris (ALP) 2 2

Sawford, Rod (ALP) 2 2

White, Thomas (LP) 2 2

Peacock, Andrew (LP) 2 2

Bate, Jeff (LP) 2 2

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 41

Member and Party

Named but not proceeded Named but negatived

Named and suspended Sin binned Total

Pearce, Christopher (LP) 2 2

Perrett, Graham (ALP) 2 2

McGrath, David (ALP) 2 2

Johnson, Michael (LP) 2 2

Rudd, Kevin (ALP) 1 1

Georganas, Steve (ALP) 1 1

Keon, Stan (ALP (A-C)) 1 1

Cadman, Alan (LP) 1 1

Gorton, John (LP) 1 1

Cobb, John (NP) 1 1

Campbell, Graeme (ALP) 1 1

Gullett, Henry (LP) 1 1

Klugman, Dick (ALP) 1 1

Martens, George (ALP) 1 1

Lucock, Philip (NP) 1 1

Martin, Stephen (ALP) 1 1

Robinson, Ian (NP) 1 1

Massy-Greene, Walter (LP) 1 1

Anthony, Larry (NP) 1 1

Matheson, Russell (LP) 1 1

Kelly, De-Anne (NP) 1 1

Cobb, Michael (NP) 1 1

Spender, John (LP) 1 1

Connolly, David (LP) 1 1

Barnard, Lance (ALP) 1 1

Beale, Howard (LP) 1 1

Lieberman, Lou (LP) 1 1

Halverson, Bob (LP) 1 1

Whittorn, Ray (LP) 1 1

Elliot, Justine (ALP) 1 1

Young, Mick (ALP) 1 1

Ellis, Annette (ALP) 1 1

Forbes, Jim (LP) 1 1

Hatton, Michael (ALP) 1 1

Foster, Richard (LP) 1 1

Menzies, Robert (LP) 1 1

Scott, John (ALP) 1 1

Ellis, Kate (ALP) 1 1

Sharp, John (NP) 1 1

Hawke, Bob (ALP) 1 1

Freeth, Gordon (LP) 1 1

Morgan, Arthur (NAT) 1 1

Andren, Peter (IND) 1 1

Morgan, Charles (ALP) 1 1

Stewart, Frank (ALP) 1 1

Morris, Alan (ALP) 1 1

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 42

Member and Party

Named but not proceeded Named but negatived

Named and suspended Sin binned Total

Lane, Albert (UAP) 1 1

Cook, Joseph (LP) 1 1

Lawrence, Carmen (ALP) 1 1

Mullens, John (ALP (A-C)) 1 1

Turnbull, Malcolm (LP) 1 1

Murphy, John (ALP) 1 1

Lloyd, Bruce (NP) 1 1

Neil, Maurice (LP) 1 1

Bayley, James (NAT) 1 1

Newman, Kevin (LP) 1 1

Byrne, Anthony (ALP) 1 1

Beazley, Kim C (ALP) 1 1

Woods, Harry (ALP) 1 1

Calwell, Arthur (ALP) 1 1

Zammit, Paul (IND) 1 1

Evatt, Bert (ALP) 1 1

Rosevear, John (ALP) 1 1

Beddall, David (ALP) 1 1

Forde, Frank (ALP) 1 1

Farmer, Pat (LP) 1 1

Ruddock, Philip (LP) 1 1

Hollis, Colin (ALP) 1 1

Scholes, Gordon (ALP) 1 1

Osborne, Frederick (LP) 1 1

Scott, Bruce (NP) 1 1

Holloway, Edward (ALP) 1 1

Fraser, Malcolm (LP) 1 1

Holt, Harold (LP) 1 1

Kelly, Craig (LP) 1 1

Palmer, Albert (LP) 1 1

Sherry, Ray (ALP) 1 1

Kelly, Jackie (LP) 1 1

Patterson, Rex (ALP) 1 1

Kent, Lewis (ALP) 1 1

Courtnay, Frank (ALP) 1 1

Abbott, Joseph (CP) 1 1

Ferguson, Laurie (ALP) 1 1

Dargavel, Steve (ALP) 1 1

Howe, Brian (ALP) 1 1

King, Robert (NP) 1 1

Peters, Ted (ALP) 1 1

Stewart, Frederick (UAP) 1 1

Hughes, William (ALP) 1 1

Darling, Elaine (ALP) 1 1

Ferguson, Michael (LP) 1 1

Theodore, Ted (ALP) 1 1

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 43

Member and Party

Named but not proceeded Named but negatived

Named and suspended Sin binned Total

Husic, Ed (ALP) 1 1

Lavelle, Thomas (ALP) 1 1

Broadbent, Russell (LP) 1 1

Gash, Joanna (LP) 1 1

Quick, Harry (ALP) 1 1

Andrews, Kevin (LP) 1 1

Ramsey, Rowan (LP) 1 1

Ley, Sussan (LP) 1 1

Filing, Paul (LP) 1 1

Gibbons, Steve (ALP) 1 1

Rankin, George (CP) 1 1

Webster, William (ALP) 1 1

Reid, Bruce (LP) 1 1

West, John (ALP) 1 1

Reith, Peter (LP) 1 1

Lynch, Phillip (LP) 1 1

Reynolds, Leonard (ALP) 1 1

Wight, Bruce (LP) 1 1

Jackson, Sharryn (ALP) 1 1

Wilson, John (FT) 1 1

Crean, Frank (ALP) 1 1

Windsor, Tony (IND) 1 1

Cameron, Ian (NP) 1 1

Yates, George (ALP) 1 1

Jess, John (LP) 1 1

Duffy, Michael (ALP) 1 1

Johnson, Leonard (ALP) 1 1

Mahony, William (ALP) 1 1

Roberton, Hugh (CP) 1 1

Total 132 3 310 907 1,352

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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 44

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

Named but not proceeded with or negatived

Suspended Sin binned Total Seats

NSW 58 142 284 31.3% 484 35.8% 48 32%

Victoria 30 75 230 25.4% 335 24.8% 37 24.6%

Queensland 18 37 150 16.5% 205 15.2% 30 20%

SA 10 17 85 9.4% 112 8.3% 11 7.3%

WA 6 25 97 10.7% 128 9.5% 15 10%

Tasmania 11 7 36 4.0% 54 4.0% 5 3.3%

ACT 0 2 4 0.4% 6 0.4% 2 1.3%

NT 2 5 21 2.3% 28 2.1% 2 1.3%

Total 135 310 907 1,352 150

Appendix G: Disciplinary actions by Speakership Speakerships (bolded) and Chairs Disciplinary

actions per Chair

Disciplinary actions per Speakership

Sitting Days per Speakership

Disciplinary actions per sitting days

Holder, Sir Frederick 9.5.1901-23.7.1909 2 2 791# .003

Salmon, Charles 28.7.1909-19.2.1910 0 0 74 .000

McDonald, Charles 1.7.1910-23.4.1913 6 6 249 .024

Johnson, William 9.7.1913-30.7.1914 5 5 108 .046

McDonald, Charles 8.10.1914-26.3.1917 3 4 147 .027

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 0 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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 45

Speakerships (bolded) and Chairs Disciplinary

actions per Chair

Disciplinary actions per Speakership

Sitting Days per Speakership

Disciplinary actions per sitting days

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* .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** .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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 46

Speakerships (bolded) and Chairs Disciplinary

actions per Chair

Disciplinary actions per Speakership

Sitting Days per Speakership

Disciplinary actions per sitting days

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 9.10.2012-12.8.2013 66 66 44 1.500

Total 1,352 1,352 7,611 .178

#Does not include the sitting day after Speaker Holder died

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

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

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 47

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

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 Entry Point for referral.

‘That’s it, you’re out’: disorderly conduct in the House of Representatives from 1901 to 2013 48