Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I will respond to the amendment itself, and I'll just respond once because there are two amendments that have been circulated. This one deals with giving additional powers to the Speaker by framing things in the negative as to what we want to prevent, and the next one gives similar powers to the Speaker but frames it in terms of what we would want to expect. They frame them differently, but they deal with a similar concept.

Anyone who goes through Practice will see that offensive words are clearly out, offensive gestures are clearly out, but offensive and intimidatory behaviour is not necessarily covered. I think it is fair to say that there is a strong appetite from this parliament and an expectation from the Australian people that that sort of behaviour is just as dangerous and would be considered by the public as just as unparliamentary as the words or the gestures that are already referred to in Practice.

What method is best to deal with this? Do you frame it in the positive or do you frame it in the negative? Do you, in fact, need the power, or is there another method? I don't have a fixed view on that, but I do have a very fixed view that, from my conversations with the crossbench—and I'll put it in these terms—we have often seen a situation where people stand when the chamber is full and a pile on occurs, and this is more directed at the crossbench than any other members in this place. Any observer of that would think they were watching intimidation. Sometimes it will happen to government or opposition members, but I've seen it happen a lot to the crossbench. It is not something we want in the parliament.

What the method is to deal with this, I can't give a guarantee, so the government won't be supporting either this amendment or the next amendment in this motion today. I will undertake to the parliament, though, for both this amendment and the next amendment that, as soon as the Committee on Procedures is formed, I'll be writing to them and asking them to look at this matter and the pathways, whether it's standing orders or whether it's something you as Speaker decide you already have the power to do.

I do think there is an expectation in the parliament that, yes, words can be offensive, yes, gestures can be offensive, but, yes, behaviour can be offensive as well. That doesn't always necessarily involve words or gestures, and it is one of the areas where, as part of us responding to the Kate Jenkins inquiry that came down and in making sure that we are in fact setting the standard and raising the standards of this place, we need to basically ensure that you are empowered to be able to deal with behaviour. So we'll be opposing both amendments, but I wanted to explain, in one hit, the reasons.

Question negatived.

See this speech in context