Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move as an amendment to the motion:

That standing order 91 be amended as follows:

91 Disorderly conduct

A Member's conduct shall be considered disorderly if the Member has:

(a) persistently and wilfully obstructed the House;

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

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

(d) wilfully disobeyed an order of the House;

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

(f) been considered by the Speaker to have behaved in a disorderly manner, including behaviour that is intimidating, harassing or bullying.

This amendment is to make sure that we do, in fact, have a safe and respectful chamber and parliamentary debate. There is a balancing act between robust parliamentary debate and having a safe, respectful and discrimination-free workplace. As parliamentarians, we must lead by example and ensure that freedom of speech is encouraged in our workplace but is not used to excuse harmful behaviour and disorderly conduct. This amendment seeks to clarify what constitutes disorderly conduct in this place so that, when it occurs, it's not left to an interpretation in the moment, which can be difficult, especially if it has not been dealt with in that way in the past under the standing orders—this is for the benefit of the chair—and so that it can be quickly addressed, allowing the debate to return to being productive and allowing MPs to continue with that job.

We know that we have antidiscrimination laws and laws that make it unlawful to have bullying, intimidating and harassing behaviour in a workplace. We know it is unlawful conduct. The difficulty we have is how that then applies in this place, because, at the same time, we have parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege protects members from defamation action for statements made in the chamber; it ensures freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. However, parliamentary privilege does not override all legal obligations. In fact, it does not protect against discrimination law and does not exempt conduct within the chamber from scrutiny in relation to antidiscrimination principles.

The difficulty is when the bullying, harassing and intimidation is oral—by way of yelling, for example, as I experienced during the previous term of parliament, where the coalition had a mob-like attitude of turning, yelling and trying to intimidate me from continuing with my speech. In any other workplace, that would be unlawful conduct. The difficulty in this place is that parliamentary privilege is seen as an override to the question of those laws applying to that conduct.

So my amendment seeks to make very clear that standing order 91, which relates to disorderly conduct, includes behaviour that is intimidating, bullying and harassing. By making it explicit, it enables and empowers the Speaker to rule very quickly and promptly when intimidating, bullying or harassing behaviour is underway in the chamber. That's why this is really important.

There have been attempts to deal with this through codes of conduct, and we know the previous parliament and the parliament before that have tried to improve respect and conduct in this place. The difficulty is that the code of conduct does not apply in this chamber, because of that interrelation with parliamentary privilege, so it is a balancing act between protecting robust parliamentary debate and ensuring a safe, respectful and discrimination-free workplace. I would argue there have been instances in this place where that has not happened. I've certainly been the subject of it. If we are to commence this new 48th Parliament in a new tone and a new note, I would urge the government to consider this amendment to standing order 91 to make it very clear and explicit, for the benefit of the Speaker in applying the standing orders, that disorderly conduct includes intimidation, harassment and bullying. I think that in this place, as legislators, we have to lead by example. We have to ensure the workplace reflects the values we are legislating for others. We cannot have a situation where our workplace is setting a standard completely different to the one that is applied in workplaces all around Australia. I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context