Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Hansard source

Yesterday in question time, there was a great deal of disruption during Senator Bilyk's questions and the answers given by Senator Abetz. The disruption and the need for me to constantly call the Senate to order made it very difficult to catch what individual senators were interjecting at the time. Because of the noise, especially from those close to the chair, I could only hear portions—at best—of senators interjecting, of which there were many. Some senators apparently took exception to remarks made by Senator Heffernan and Senator Brandis, and I undertook to review the Hansard and the audiovisual footage.

I have reviewed the Hansard and the footage, neither of which detected Senator Heffernan making any inappropriate remarks. Having warned Senator Heffernan not to repeat anything that he may have said that could be construed as inappropriate, and requesting that he withdraw any such statement if it was inappropriate and if it was made, Senator Heffernan indicated that he did not say anything inappropriate. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I can only take Senator Heffernan at his word that he did not.

In relation to Senator Brandis, the Hansard and the footage did not pick up the words he used. I heard, albeit still with difficulty, the words used by Senator Brandis at the time but do not consider that they carried the meaning alleged by Senator Conroy. As I recall the words, they took the form of a warning to Senator Bilyk to take care what she said lest she commit a crime. I took the language used by Senator Brandis to be merely rhetorical. As all senators would understand, anything Senator Bilyk said in question time is protected by absolute privilege. It forms part of the proceedings in parliament which, in accordance with the law of parliamentary privilege, cannot be impeached or questioned in any place outside parliament, let alone form the basis for any action against her, including any action for contempt under the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

As I indicated last week, I have been very disappointed with the conduct of senators, particularly during question time. I have had difficulty hearing answers because of the level of interjection from both sides of the chamber but especially on my near left. As communications to my office indicate, disruptive behaviour reflects poorly on individual senators and upon the Senate as a whole.

Also, the level of backchat to, and argumentation with, the chair is currently unacceptable. Arguing with the chair, whether it be me, the Deputy President or any of the temporary chairs, is not in order at any time and there has certainly been far too much of it of late.

As we all know, the standing orders do not give the President any authority to suspend senators for brief periods. Senators may only be suspended by a decision of the Senate as a whole. While the President is responsible for maintaining order, responsibility for discipline lies with all senators. I would be reluctant to see the standing orders amended to provide for the removal of a senator, by the chair, for breaches of the rules as I believe the integrity and conduct of each senator should rest with each and every senator. I can only appeal to the good will and desire of each senator to represent their state to a standard accepted by the people of Australia, which, I am confident, would include the proper observance of all rules, being respectful to one's colleagues and to observe the authority of the chair. Senators, the alternative is to change our standing orders. As I have indicated, I do not think that this Senate would want this to be the next option for restoring respect and order to this august chamber.

I know, through substantial representation from members of the public, that the people of Australia expect better behaviour and a more mature approach to senators' conduct in this place. I do note that the eight crossbenchers and pockets of other senators constantly observe the standing orders and respect the conventions and decency of the more senior parliamentary chamber in the Commonwealth of Australia.

The standing orders are rules of debate, designed to provide a rational framework for the contest of ideas, which is the essence of a parliament. As I intimated last week, intelligent, witty and respectful interjection, whilst technically disorderly, can be tolerated and at times it can be welcomed, provided it is not constant, loud, and aggressive and does not continue despite calls from the chair to cease.

So, Senators, please consider the seat that you occupy, consider the people that you represent, consider the many observers that watch proceedings live, or those that listen or view on national broadcast and allow them to, at least, feel justified and assured that this place contains individuals, whom they elected, that will uphold the good values, standards and discipline that befits holding the office of a senator in the parliament of Australia.