'What's next, onesies?': Why this MP's parliamentary attire sparked debate

Parliament's dress code is in the spotlight, and it isn't the first time.

Nationals MP Pat Conaghan (right) took issue with Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather's (left) decision to forgo a tie in parliament. Source: AAP, SBS

Key Points

• Parliament's dress code is in the spotlight.
• It isn't the first time.

It was a parliamentary Question Time moment that would have ordinarily been unremarkable.

On Wednesday, newly-elected Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather rose from his seat to quiz Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about the nation's housing crisis. Asking questions, as the name of the event suggests, is not unexpected and a sign of a healthy democracy (although that's not to say it's perfect).

Mr Chandler-Mather was just three seconds into speaking when one eagle-eyed Nationals MP spied what he believed to be an issue, quickly calling a point of order, which draws attention to an apparent violation of the rules.

"Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of undress of the member," said Pat Conaghan, the member for the NSW seat of Cowper, referring to Mr Chandler-Mather's lack of a tie.

Although there is no specific dress code in the House of Representatives, discretion lies with the speaker, according to the parliamentary rule book.

While male MPs typically wear a suit and tie in the chamber, Speaker Milton Dick saw no issue with Mr Chandler-Mather's decision to forgo one and dismissed Mr Conaghan's interjection.

But it didn't mark the end of the matter. Mr Conaghan later released a statement in which he expressed concern that ignoring "tradition" risked putting dress standards on a slippery slope that could lead to MPs wearing onesies in parliament.

"This is not a barbecue. This is Question Time in the Australian Parliament. What next, board shorts and thongs? Maybe a onesie in winter," he said.

"Some may say that it's a minor matter to not comply with the dress standard but what it says to many, including me, is that there is little respect for the tradition and history of our parliament."

Mr Chandler-Mather told Nine Newspapers it was "completely bizarre" that he should be expected to "dress up like a businessman" in a place that is supposed to represent all Australians.

The 'strangers' rule

It's not the first time parliament's rules and conventions have been highlighted recently.

Newly-elected independent Senator David Pocock wanted to have an Auslan interpreter alongside him as he delivered his maiden speech, but the government and Opposition denied his request.

It's not Senate practice to allow people who are not elected to be present on the floor of the chamber, and the major parties were concerned it would set a precedent to invite more "strangers" (a person other than a member or parliamentary official) there.

Instead, the government allowed the interpreter to translate from the Parliament House broadcast studio and appear on large screens in the chamber and on-screen in the live broadcast.

Greens Senator Larissa Waters became the first politician to breastfeed in parliament after the rules were changed to no longer classify infants in the care of members as "strangers". Source: AAP / Lukas Coch

The "strangers" rule also used to prevent members from bringing infants on the floor of the upper and lower houses, and mothers who were breastfeeding were given a proxy vote.

But it was revised in 2016 to make parliament more "family-friendly", and since then members have been able to bring infants in their care to their seats.

A year later, Greens Senator Larissa Waters became the first politician to breastfeed in parliament.

Differing views of what is acceptable

It's not just politicians that are subject to rules and conventions. Some extended to members of the media and visitors in the public gallery.

In 2018, ABC presenter Patricia Karvelas was ejected from Question Time after an official in the House of Representatives decided that her half-sleeve top breached the dress code standards.

Following the incident, then-speaker Tony Smith said Ms Karvelas should not have been thrown out and that what she was wearing "would be reasonably considered professional business attire".

Then-Liberal MP Philip Ruddock wore a tailored safari suit in the House of Representatives in 2015, putting a 1977 ruling that found them acceptable to wear in the chamber to the test. Source: AAP / Mick Tsikas

Over time, different speakers have held different views over what is appropriate to wear.

In 1999, Speaker Neil Andrew believed the acceptable standard for men was good trousers, a jacket, collar and tie, and that women should adhere to a similar standard of formality, but he would not rigidly enforce this.

This was echoed by Speaker Andrew Hawker in 2005, but he was firm that members should not arrive in casual wear or sportswear.

Rulings from earlier years permitted members to wear hats (but not while entering, leaving, or speaking in the chamber). Tailored safari suits without a tie were also deemed acceptable in 1977, and almost 40 years later, former Liberal MP Philip Ruddock wore one as part of a dare to raise money for motor neuron disease research.

Other rulings have included:

• A member may keep his hands in his pockets while speaking.
• The beating of hands on or kicking of chamber desks is disorderly.
• A member may distribute books to other members in the chamber.
• A member may not distribute apples to other members in the chamber.
• Climbing over seats is not fitting behaviour.
• A Member should not sit on the arm of a seat.
• A Minister who had tossed papers onto the table was required to retrieve them.