John Hogg (President) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron! On both sides: it does not help the conduct of question time when there are endless interjections from both sides and people debating the issue across the chamber. It distracts from the conduct of question time and my capacity to hear the answers that are being given. I understand that on both sides there may well be fervent and passionate views on this issue, and I understand that there is obviously a capacity in this chamber for robust debate. That is what parliamentary democracy is about. But it becomes very difficult for me when people on both sides are debating the issue when the question is being answered, whether people like the answer or not—or whether people like the question or not. It is not a matter of what people’s individual views might be, and I understand that there will be people on both sides who will be offended either by the question or by the answer. And I accept that. But what I want to be able to do is to listen to the answers—and with due deference to you, Senator Brandis, there were some parts of that answer I had no capacity to hear at all, because of the debate that was taking place across the chamber on both sides.

I am not singling out one side or the other. I am just saying to the chamber: I am listening to the answers, I am trying to ensure that the ministers are addressing the questions that are being asked. Some of the questions, I might add, do not necessarily help question time in this chamber either, and I have been fairly flexible about the questions that I have allowed during question time, because I believe that this place should not be about a focus on the presiding officer during question time. I think it should be about the questions and the answers that are given by ministers, and the responsibility of the ministers in answering the questions to comply with the standing orders and be directly relevant to the questions that are being asked.

If we do not abide by the framework, then question time becomes argy-bargy, it becomes a battle of voices and it does not really serve the general public any good whatsoever. I just ask for there to be a bit of tolerance on both sides. I understand the robustness and the passion on both sides. But just tinge that with a little bit of restraint so that I can at least hear the answers.