Patricia Deveaux: Keeping order or becoming part of the chaos?
House Speaker Patricia Deveaux is once again at the centre of controversy after Long Island MP Dr Andre Rollins was ordered out of the chamber following a heated exchange over the Opposition’s Question and Answer Period.
Rollins crossed a line when he called the Speaker a “disgrace” in frustration — language he subsequently apologised for. But the confrontation also revived a bigger question about Deveaux’s approach to presiding over the House.
And this is not the first time.
In December 2024, Deveaux’s refusal to clarify whether Opposition Leader Michael Pintard could address explosive US corruption allegations helped trigger a confrontation that spiralled into parliamentary chaos. St Barnabas MP Shanendon Cartwright ultimately threw the Speaker’s ceremonial mace through a window. That extraordinary act was his responsibility, but the events exposed just how badly relations between the chair and Opposition is.
In June 2026, Deveaux declared, “This Speaker will not be silenced” and “This Speaker will not be bullied” during a heated dispute with Pintard over the Public Accounts Committee. Days later, she accused him of maligning her character through a social media post connected to allegations of drug activity in Parliament. Pintard rejected her interpretation and sought to have her remarks withdrawn.
These incidents raise questions that go beyond personality clashes.
In the Westminster parliamentary tradition, the Speaker is expected to exercise authority with impartiality, restraint and consistency. The chair must command respect from both sides, not because the Speaker always gets the last word, but because members believe the rules are being applied fairly.
That does not mean the Speaker must tolerate disorder. MPs have a responsibility to respect the chair, follow parliamentary rules and conduct themselves appropriately. Rollins’ language was unacceptable, and the behaviour of Opposition members during previous confrontations cannot simply be ignored.
But the Speaker also has a responsibility to de-escalate tensions, not become another participant in them.
When procedural disagreements repeatedly turn into personal exchanges, when the chair and Opposition leader are publicly trading accusations, and when MPs leave the chamber protesting their treatment, confidence in the institution inevitably comes under scrutiny.
Deveaux has defended her authority and emphasised the importance of parliamentary rules and decorum. But so is the expectation that the Speaker will rise above the political divide.
The question is whether her approach to exercising that authority is strengthening confidence in the chair or deepening the divisions.
