I rise also to speak on the findings of the inquiry into the provisions relating to

disorder by the Standing Committee on Procedure. I note the chair's comments and thank him and members of

the committee, Ms Butler, Mr Gee, Mr Goodenough, Mr Irons and Ms Ryan. The committee resolved earlier this

year, on 30 March, to identify, as we heard, whether the current provisions of the standing orders are adequate

or appropriate to maintain the dignity and decorum of the House in which we serve, and also, importantly, to

analyse any relevant examples of international or domestic parliaments that may have alternative mechanisms

to those currently exercised under standing orders 88 to 96.

While this may not be front-page news, how we operate in this chamber does set the tone for the national debate

and politics in Australia. The current two-tiered sanction system within the House of Representatives has been in

operation, as we heard from the chair, for over two decades, with standing order 94(a) coming into enforcement

in 1994 as recommended by the 1986 procedures committee. The principles embodied within the standing orders

enable the Speaker to maintain order within the chamber with the implied discretion of the House that comes

from the authority of the standing orders themselves. The relatively stable nature of the disorder provisions

reflects the intention of the House to maintain order through the Speaker. However, the inclusion of the one-hour

exclusion under standing order 94(a), which I have not received—touch wood—reflects the House's desire for

a mechanism that could maintain order and minimise disruption without escalating to the more serious sanction

of naming the member.

To expand the powers, as we heard, could potentially allow for more effective control of behaviour within the

chamber or more flexibility in minimising disruption. However, it could also impinge on the ability of the House

to legislate and vote effectively in circumstance where a member may be excluded under any new powers. So

the question of whether the standing orders needed clarifying, expanding or supplementing was tested against

similar Westminster style parliaments and with members directly. When the committee looked abroad to other

Westminster style parliaments, we saw a variety of ways in which parliaments manage disorder. For example,

the United Kingdom's House of Commons has diverged into multiple forms of tiered sanctions but still with the

common naming for more serious offences.

Similarly, this House has set its own sanctions, and the current two-tiered sanction structure is as a result of

that evolution. Having been 23 years now since the introduction of the current standing order 94(a) provision,

statistics suggest that its use has either aided in removing the disorder that would have led to a naming or that

speakers have potentially controlled disorderly behaviour in a more efficient manner. As we heard, with little

support from current members to support a change, the committee recommended and suggested that the current

provisions remain unchanged. This is something I support and I know the members of the committee support. I

thank the members of the secretariat and once again place on record the work of the chair to make sure we have

an effective report this parliament can deal with.