STANDING ORDERS, MEMBERS' CONDUCT

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:32): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to provide that if, during the periods for asking questions without notice and debate on the question proposed by the Speaker 'That the house note grievances', any member—

(a) persistently or wilfully obstructs the business of the house; or

(b) refuses to conform to the standing orders of the house,

the Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Acting Speaker may direct the member to immediately withdraw from the chamber for a period of five minutes. The member may enter the chamber to vote in any division called for during the period in which they have withdrawn.

I am aware, as others are, that the—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much background noise.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Maybe we should send some out, Madam Speaker. I am aware that the Standing Orders Committee is deliberating on some reforms to the house, but I think it is important that we canvass this issue in general terms today as part of, I guess, an agenda for more substantial reform of the way in which we conduct ourselves in this place.

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, both in here and outside, the Speaker has very limited power in terms of controlling behaviour in this house. The media and others will say that the Speaker can have someone suspended for a day and longer periods but, in effect, that is with the approval of the house. The reality is that the Speaker cannot currently send someone out for a short period of time. I have nominated five minutes here. I believe that you, Madam Speaker, might believe that it should be 10 minutes; I am not going to quibble about that.

However, currently the Speaker cannot send someone out as is the case in many, if not most, other parliaments. I have seen this provision at work in Queensland. The Speaker just says, 'The member for X will leave the chamber for a period of five minutes' (or 10 minutes) and after they have calmed down, they come back in. I have the provision in here that a member would not lose their voting rights if a vote was taken during their suspension or the time they were sent out, and I think that is fair enough. I do not believe you should take away voting rights.

What we see in here day after day is continual inappropriate behaviour where the Speaker has to call for order. We have breaches of standing orders all the time with people interjecting. They used to be tolerated because often they were funny. Now they are not funny. We have ministers in their responses stopping and starting and also breaching standing orders by responding to interjections. I believe all that nonsense would come to an end if the Speaker could say that any member who is wilfully obstructing the house or refusing to conform to standing orders is sent out for a period of time. They would get a bit more oxygen and come back and, hopefully, act a bit more sensibly.

I think it is a reasonable measure. In fact, the Premier was a great advocate of this more than 10 years ago. He used the term 'sin bin', I think. It is a very simple measure. It does not require a person being suspended for a whole day or three days, or whatever. It is a short period of time. They go out, realise that they have been hindering the operation of the house, obstructing it, and not conforming to the direction of the Speaker, and therefore when they come back, hopefully, they will behave themselves.

The beauty of this measure is that it does not have a bias in it. We would be naive to believe that the system of punishment in this place for inappropriate behaviour is the same for both sides of the house. It is not. The Speaker is not going to be able to discipline a minister in the same way that someone else is treated for a breach. The reality is that, if a minister is defying the chair or being in any other way obstructionist, currently the party that has the majority in the house is not going to support their minister being ejected. I have never seen it happen and I do not think it will ever happen. But, if a minister was wilfully obstructing, the Speaker could say, 'The minister for X will leave the chamber' for five or 10 minutes.

So, this measure is patently fair. It allows the Speaker to have instant and immediate control and, if a person persists, they can be sent out again. As I say, it is part of a wider agenda for reform. Our parliament has been very slow in reforming itself. Other parliaments have brought in a whole lot of other measures, and I will not canvass them now, but we really need to get our act together here. I am sure my colleagues sitting next to me on the crossbenches would know from their experience in local government that the sort of behaviour that goes on here would not be accepted or tolerated in a local government setting—or in most other settings—for even a second. So we need to improve the way we behave.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that you are doing a great job in the chair, but you are being hamstrung. I saw a negative comment in the paper today, and I think your hands are tied because you do not have recourse to immediate disciplinary action which is simple, fair and appropriate. So I commend this motion to the house and I ask members and the Standing Orders Committee to seriously look at this. As I say, I am relaxed about whether the time span is five minutes or 10 minutes, but I think we need this change, as has happened, as I say, in Queensland and most other parliaments that I am aware of. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:39): I certainly support this motion. Having been in local government for 17 years, I was quite horrified at the behaviour I saw when I came into this place during question time. Every visitor I have had to this parliament since I have been here has commented on question time and how unproductive and disorderly it is and how so little can be achieved during question time. I believe that the Speaker needs more power to be able to bring people to order so that this place can run much more smoothly.

Some people may be bemused that new members often want to make changes to make parliament run more efficiently, but I believe that we as elected members should ensure that questions are asked in a proper manner and answered in a proper manner without obstruction. That way, the people who visit this place and the people who are asking their questions can obtain succinct answers and can actually hear those answers without interruption from either side of the house. I certainly support this motion.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (11:40): Along with my fellow Independents, I stand to support the motion by the member for Fisher. As the member for Mount Gambier has just indicated, he was appalled and surprised at the behaviour and the noise factor that is in this chamber during question time and in other periods of debate and discussion of the house.

I have had 20 years' experience in local government. When I came here I was very, very surprised at the interaction and what I call the disrespect for somebody who may be speaking; the disinclination to listen in silence and to actually hear exactly what that person, whether they be a member of the government or a member of the opposition, is trying to get across. We are here to represent the people of our electorate and we need to ensure that we hear all of the arguments put forward by any member of the house.

I feel for you, Madam Speaker. I think you are doing an excellent job up there. As the member for Fisher has indicated, I think we need to have a point at which the Speaker can act without having to get permission of the whole house, because, as the member for Fisher has indicated, whoever is in government has the numbers and they certainly would not expel one of their own members.

I certainly believe that you as the Speaker, or any Speaker, should be able to expel from this house an unruly person who does not adhere to the Speaker's instructions for a period of time. I believe five minutes is inadequate, but the member for Fisher has put 'for five minutes' there, and I will support that at this particular point.

He also says there that the member may enter the chamber to vote in any division called during the period in which they have been withdrawn. If this goes through I will be talking about that because, again, if that member is expelled or withdrawn from the house it is not damaging to the party or the person putting that motion up. In actual fact, that person should not be able to be paired, nor should they be able to participate in any of the divisions.

Again, I am talking about respect for each other, I am talking about respect for our constituents and I am talking about respect for the chair. So, I commend this motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.