COMMITTEES

Mr SMALL (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (10:08): As we enter the second week of a double-header, there's no doubt some mischief ahead for you to manage, Mr Speaker, as we go about the business of governing this nation. It was important that, for coalition members of the committee as we approached this inquiry, one thing was central and non-negotiable, and that was that robust debate is good for democracy.

Ultimately, freedom of speech transforms good ideas to great ideas through robust debate while bad ideas founder under the weight of reason. We believe that every member of this place comes here with different interests, different views and different values but with one common goal, and that's to see Australia be a stronger and more prosperous nation. That is a good thing indeed.

We also know that Australians expect their representatives to behave in this place in a respectful manner, so we had to balance that with the right to speak passionately in this place because, when it comes to contemporary issues, like Labor's budget of broken promises or indeed the cap on veteran funding, the people who sent us here expect nothing less. The member for Riverina's contribution last week was a perfect example of debate with vim and vigour in this House.

So, whilst the parliament must remain a forum for the free exchange of ideas and the scrutiny of government, the democratic principles of good governance and accountability cannot be diminished, but the need to uphold the standards which the chair of the committee, the Deputy Speaker, beautifully articulated just now is an absolute imperative at the same time.

The House recently afforded the Speaker the option of directing a member to leave the chamber for up to three hours, for example. This, of course, has been used very sparingly by you, Mr Speaker, and I've been one of the infamous few to give you that opportunity to demonstrate the full flexibility of the standing orders. The committee recognises in this report that the best form of meaningful behavioural change in the House is through education.

The suggestion to extend the education of House processes and procedures through the PWSS and the Speaker's panel is a welcome inclusion. These recommendations recognise that education is and should be an ongoing requirement for members of this place, regardless of the experience they bring here, because continued education on behaviour and respect ultimately lead to higher standards.

There does seem to be some confusion amongst members and staff as to how the behaviour code applies in the chamber and out of it across Commonwealth workplaces. That's why further education is so important to clarify, in the minds of all of those who come here to do the business of the nation, the way in which that code applies. For a responsible and respectful workplace, it is incumbent on us all to train people, to set expectations and to reinforce them, holding those individuals to account for their own conduct.

What isn't fair is to punish or reprimand an entire workplace because of the actions of any single person. And, indeed, we did see a submission to the committee that would demand that of this House. The member for Warringah, in her submission, suggested that there should be the power to sanction groups of members, political parties or even party leaders.

Ultimately, it wasn't supported by the committee, because it would betray that fundamental principle. It simply isn't fair to punish a cohort because of the actions of one person. Of course, we saw an example of that just last week, when the member for Mackellar was removed from the House for an hour.

Yet, under that suggestion of collective punishment, we could have seen the Speaker remove the entire crossbench. Imagine the outrage that would have followed. Punishing Australians by removing their representatives that they sent to this place to fight for them is a serious move indeed.

That's why we believe that the standing orders do give the Speaker and the members of the Speaker's panel sufficient flexibility within the standing orders to manage behaviour. Rather than rewriting those rules, this report does rightly focus on the training and guidance and accountability aspects of managing behaviour, and it has reaffirmed that strong political disagreement and respectful conduct can co-exist.

I do want to recognise the stewardship provided to the committee by the chair—the Deputy Speaker—and the collegiate engagement from the committee members across the aisle in coming together and presenting to the parliament a bipartisan report. It really has been a pleasure to undertake this body of work together with those committee members, and I join the chair in commending the report to the House.

The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired.