Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Interruptions

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be appropriate to raise this point at this stage, before questions commence. Yesterday was probably the most raucous, rowdy question period I can recall in over 20 years in this place, and, for at least one correspondent this morning, who is a regular listener to Parliament, it was the worst in over 35 years. Last week, or the week before, you ruled that orchestrated barracking would not be tolerated. We had that from both sides yesterday on occasion. Before today’s round begins I am seeking your assurance that you will honour your previous ruling and that those who indulge in orchestrated barracking will be asked to leave the Chamber, so that the rest of us can hear what is going on.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comment. I will certainly enforce that to the best of my ability, but it is largely in the hands of members themselves; otherwise, there would be few people left within the Chamber, and I do not see that that would serve any useful purpose—though some may disagree with me. But I do ask members to respect the right of others, and those who are listening, to be able to hear the answer. It is not to prevent people from expressing themselves but, in fact, to provide that freedom of expression that I think this House wishes to uphold—the right to hear what others say.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I make a suggestion that perhaps part of yesterday’s problem arose from the decision there could be interjection while questions were being asked—and I would point out that it was in fact Mr Dunne who sought that ruling from you some weeks back. I also think you cannot avoid—and I note that Mr Dunne’s correspondent made it abundantly clear—that it is the answers given by Ministers that cause much of the problem.

Madam Speaker, if you cast your mind back to yesterday, you will recall there was actually a lot more barracking during answers than during questions. I think members who are relatively new members cannot remember the days when there was some balance in this House between Government and Opposition, and Government members were allowed to interject regularly, and there was what, I think, was generally regarded as a free and even flow. That has tightened up in recent years. Following a request, there has been some balance restored, and I think it now behoves both sides of the House to decide whether that balance comes down to a level that is reasonable or not.

But I want to make it clear that as far as I am concerned, and many Government members are concerned, if allegations of corruptness are used against us, then we will tell the truth about members opposite.

I thank members for their comments. I did, of course, consult widely before the last ruling was made, and it was made in the context, as I have said before, that all members in this House should be free to express themselves, but they should be able to do that in a way that is consistent with other members being heard. That is all that is being sought within this House. As I said, it is for members themselves, also, to take some responsibility for this. In my judgment, often the answers follow the questions, as well, and I do intend, in respect of both questions and answers, to make them as consistent with the Standing Orders as is humanly possible.

Housing—Replies to Questions