"Mr Speaker, I withdraw..." a comparative analysis of parliamentary standards via electronic Hansard

The question of parliamentary standards and parliamentarians’ performances wells up from time to time in the public eye, fuelled by sometimes exaggerated media treatment but also by the theatrical posturing of certain parliamentary members themselves. While it might be expedient for those members not in government to point the finger of blame, making accusations of impropriety, Speaker-bias and ‘arrogant disregard’ for parliamentary conventions, is it actually the case that the governing party is more often (ir)responsible? Was Tony Fitzgerald right in claiming recently that “[political] ethics are always tested by incumbency”? Or is, as some might suspect, one side of politics more prone to lowering the standards of parliament than another? This paper showcases instances of ‘improper’ and ‘unbecoming’ behaviour by members of parliament, presenting a comparison between standards exhibited over several years in both the Queensland and Western Australian Legislative Assemblies, as well as their federal counterpart, the Commonwealth House of Representatives. This objective was pursued via the online search facilities of the Queensland, Western Australian and Commonwealth Parliament websites, accessing the electronic transcripts of Hansard in each case. Examples of unparliamentary behaviour were identified using the simple search term, “Mr Speaker I withdraw”, indicating the making and forced retraction of comments deemed ‘not befitting a member of the House’. The search results were categorised and tabulated numerically, presenting the findings in revealingly empirical fashion. In so doing, the paper shows just which side of the chamber – Coalition or Labor, incumbent Government or disgruntled Opposition – has more often crossed the boundary between robust parliamentary debate and cheap, political point-scoring. It also answers the question of whether most withdrawals are elicited from so-called ‘serial offenders’. Further, by sheer weight of numbers it illustrates whether parliamentary standards of behaviour have improved or deteriorated over this time