I would not want the Chair to unilaterally be able to expel people. I’m fine with them being a piece in the process.
The Assembly has final say on its own membership in the form of the laws it passes. The Assembly should not have the ability to expel specific members.
Well, it being the case that the Assembly could vote to overturn expulsions, how would that issue present itself to the Assembly? Who is bringing it before the Assembly and why? Is there an appeals process? How seriously is that appeals process taken?
I wouldn’t think of the Chair as authoritarian, the Chair is impartial in this region and I am very proud of that fact and I am very grateful to all the Chairs and Deputy Chairs who have upheld impartiality during their roles. If the Chair is taking an impartial stance on something and is taking the decision to remove someone’s Legislatorship, I disagree that that is authoritarian, especially if that has been agreed by the Assembly and voted on, the Chair then has the mandate of the Assembly to do this, which is not an authoritarian power. It is a mandated power. I agree with @Utopia that the power to expel someone should not lie with the Assembly.
Just to clarify, when I say the Assembly have voted on something, I mean if a vote were to make its way before the Assembly to recognise the authority of the Chair to expel someone from their Legislatorship, then the Chair is mandated.
I can’t comprehend why the Chair should be able to expel a legislator, no matter what checks you put in place, instead of the Assembly.
If anything, it would preferable to remove the power of suspension altogether and keep the Chair a mere administrative and presiding official.
I will note that the Assembly already has the power to vote on (and potentially overturn) denied applications for legislatorship.
I would also support expanding Assembly power and allowing the Assembly to also determine that, after the multiple disruptions/suspensions of legislators as declared by the Chair, the Assembly can take action and remove one of its own. If we think the Assembly might abuse the power, provide that the result of the vote, if successful, results in automatic appeal, as a safeguard of legislators rights against politically motivated removals to the High Court.
Let the Assembly vote to expel one of its members with a supermajority and a minimum quorum. It is the supreme legislative body already, and the only organ of the Coalition that the CRS cannot overrule in a state of emergency (if it makes its voice heard!).
I’m not opposed to this, but I think it’s unnecessary. The process should work like a ban; the person expelled should as for a review from the High Court, especially if they, in their opinion, think it was politically motivated.
I agree; I do not inherently support an automatic appeal to the High Court, but it is something I could support as a safeguard if people think unilateral expulsion is too much (which I do not).
I’m wondering if it would be appropriate for the Assembly to make the decision on suspension, unless in cases such as immediate threats to regional security. In cases of regional security matters, maybe the Chair could suspend a legislator and announce it with reasons why to the Assembly (with the provision that the Assembly can repeal said suspension).
I do think the Assembly, on second thought, should be the one to decide suspensions. I’m recommending the Chair suspend legislators in extreme circumstances to avoid the wait that may come with a vote.
Note that right now suspensions may be done only for disruptive behaviour. There is nothing in the law about regional security since that falls under the remit of the CSS.
Well, that solves that then 
In real life legislatures, a check against the ability to expel a member, is that they can just run for re-election, and their constituents can return them to their seat. Nothing like that exists here, so I’d be skeptical of introducing the possibility of expulsion by majority vote. Especially becase, if a proposal to expel a member were brought forward, does anyone think it would go well?
I think there should be more consideration of, exactly what are the situations that legislator suspension is for? What constitutes “disruptive” behaviour i.e. is it obstructing the Assembly with endless points of order or something equivalent? Is it shouting profanities at other legislators? etc.. Then I imagine we’ll have a clearer idea of how this should be solved, because the discussion right now seems very abstract to me.