John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, during the censure motion, Senator Bob Brown sought the protection of the chair from interjections. As all senators know, interjections are disorderly. The basis for this is standing order 197(1), which provides that a senator shall not interrupt another senator speaking, except to draw attention to a point of order or privilege or to call attention to the lack of a quorum; otherwise, a senator who has been given the call has the right to speak without interruption.

While interjections are technically contrary to standing order 197, in practice some interjections are tolerated if they are not disruptive or if they facilitate the exchange of views and arguments in a debate. However, the chair will protect from interjections a senator who asks to be protected. This principle has its basis in rulings of Presidents which have the force of standing orders.

When it appeared to Senator Bob Brown that he may not be getting that protection, he did make what can only be characterised as a reflection on the chair. In responding to a single word interjection by Senator Macdonald, Senator Bob Brown said:

That ignorance—which of course you are allowing him to continue to display, Mr Acting Deputy President, because you do not invoke the standing orders of this place, as you should—which is writ large in what he is doing and saying—

to which Senator Trood, as the Acting Deputy President, responded:

Senator Brown, order! It ill behoves you to cast aspersions on the chair.

As a reflection on the chair, the words were objectionable and therefore disorderly. Senator Trood was correct to insist on their withdrawal and I note that Senator Brown did withdraw them but only after seriously running the risk of being named for persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the chair. It is a basic rule of the Senate that order is maintained by the President or whoever is deputising for the President in the chair. Respect for the chair is fundamental to the effective operation of the Senate, a matter for which all senators carry responsibility.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Mr President, the statement you have made is, at its core, based on two false premises and does not, therefore, uphold the standing orders of the Senate. Firstly the characterisation of the breach of a standing order as ‘technical’ is wrong in general and in particular. To adopt departure of exception from the standing orders in particular circumstances is to undermine the standing orders and the high responsibility of the chair to defend their integrity.

In the particular case the President contends, incorrectly, that it was acceptable for the chair to allow ‘a single-word interjection by Senator Macdonald’. The Hansard record clearly reveals repeated, loud and disruptive interjections from Senator Macdonald, not directed at the chair but at me, from four metres away. He was, moreover, making a deliberate breach of standing order 197, backed by multiple interjections from fellow members of the opposition without the permission of the chair.

There has to be, and is, a distinction between the chair and its occupants. This is clearly entertained in the Senate’s ability to debate the occupant’s failure to uphold the Senate’s interests via a motion of dissent. On a day of major issues, including an opposition motion to censure the government, derailing the Senate’s order of business, I did not move dissent. However, dissent was warranted. The idea that any criticism of the ruling by an occupant of the chair is a reflection on the office of the chair is unsustainable. Its logical outcome is to allocate unrestrained warrant, including derogation of the standing orders, on the basis of tolerating technical infractions to the occupier. I do not accept this dangerous disempowerment of elected senators who have every right to be protected by the upholding, without fear or favour, of the standing orders.

In defence of the Senate, I do not accept your statement.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, from time to time, as you would know, we in the coalition question statements made by you. On this occasion we fully endorse and accept your statement. Mr President, I trust we always show good grace in accepting the authority of the chair and the decision of the chair, even when we might not necessarily agree with your determination. The simple fact is, and let us be quite frank here, that Senator Brown is a chief interjector, as indeed many of us are because we feel passionate about issues. That is the way it is in this place. Many a time when I have been called upon to withdraw I have thought, ‘That wasn’t a fair cop.’ Nevertheless, I have withdrawn. Quite frankly, many a time I have interjected or behaved in a manner for which, quite possibly, I should have been called to account but have not been. I think that is the experience of every single senator in his place—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speak for yourself!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apart, of course, from Senator Conroy, who is a paragon of virtue when it comes to the standing orders! More seriously, with great respect to Senator Brown, yesterday was not the finest display of temperament by a party leader who bears, I think, special responsibility to the colleagues who sit behind him or with him to ensure that the chair is fully protected at all times.

Those who occupy the chair do a very difficult job in this place. I have no doubt that they absolutely do their best and, as is the want of every human endeavour, from time to time they will get it wrong. I can say that overwhelmingly they get it right and, as the President has ruled, there is absolutely no doubt that on this occasion Senator Trood was absolutely impeccable in the way he handled it. Quite frankly, I am not sure how many other temporary chairs would have accepted the petulance of the Leader of the Australian Greens for so long without having him removed from the chamber. As indeed you said in your statement, Mr President, Senator Brown seriously ran the risk of being named. All this occurred after a single word interjection by Senator Macdonald. When a name was mentioned, Senator Macdonald said, ‘Who?’ This then led to what can only be described as quite a bizarre diatribe and an attack on the temporary chair.

From time to time, those of us who feel it is getting too rowdy, as we try to make our point, seek protection from the chair. That is a proper and appropriate course of action to take. When it is done, without fail, the chair asks the Senate to quieten down to allow the speaker to continue. If the chair were to interrupt each and every speech on each and every occasion there was a one-word interjection, this place simply could not operate. We all know that. So with great respect to Senator Brown, I would have hoped that he would have used the occasion to apologise for his petulance and to reflect on what he did yesterday, which, I repeat, was not the finest display of temperament by the leader of a party in this place. Indeed, it fell far short of the standard one would expect of a party leader.

Senator Trood, in the face of gross provocation by the Leader of the Australian Greens, handled the situation superbly with his demeanour and his coolness, which saved Senator Brown from being named and thrown out of this place. For Senator Brown, in his contribution this morning, to not be thankful to Senator Trood for his forbearance reflects very badly on the Leader of the Australian Greens. To you, Mr President, I say thank you for reporting back so quickly and confirming the correctness of Senator Trood’s ruling at the time.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise to endorse your comments. The government supports the statement that you have made wholeheartedly. We recognise the authority of the chair in this and many other instances. The chair’s role in this place is an important one. This is one of those important times when we require the cooperation of all senators to ensure that the Senate continues in a way that befits its role in a parliamentary democracy.

Occasionally we find that people do stray from that narrow path set by the rules. In those instances, the chair and the chair’s authority is integral to ensuring that we return to that path in order to allow us to debate the important matters that are raised in this chamber, to debate the issues before the chair. We then need to use all of our ability to engage in those debates rather than be distracted by extraneous matters or interjections. It is the responsibility of all people in this chamber not to be distracted by the occasional interjection. Of course those interjections are disorderly and of course they should not be made, but I recognise, and I think everyone in this chamber recognises, that on occasions people are driven to making an interjection. It is certainly not a new phenomenon and I am certain that it will continue in future.

However, that does not detract from the fact that it is the chair who is charged with the responsibility of ensuring order in this place. The action that the chair took yesterday was proper and the ruling that you, Mr President, were asked to contemplate and report back on was proper. The government recognises that it was a matter that needed to be reported back on quickly and you have done so. The government appreciates your promptness in bringing it back here.

It is important that everybody in this chamber recognises that the chair plays an extraordinarily important role in maintaining order in this chamber. Where order is departed from, the chair’s role is clear: to bring people back to order so that the debate can continue. Sometimes it is necessary for people to recognise, even if they think they have been hard done by—I think everyone in this chamber sometimes thinks that, through a ruling of the chair, they have been hard done by—that the proper functioning of this chamber requires that, when that happens, they accept the chair’s ruling and move on to the important debates of this chamber.

Question agreed to.