Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (14:34): I indicated in my previous answer that I was shocked to discover that— Opposition members interjecting— Mr FLETCHER: when it was revealed in estimates this morning. The SPEAKER: The minister might pause for a second. We're not going to have the situation where a minister is asked a specific question and I can't hear the answer because there are a whole series of interjections. It's completely pointless. If you're going to ask the question, please listen to the answer. The minister has the call. Mr FLETCHER: I've concluded my answer. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. To both sides, to all members, I'm just going to make this point now. I will start ejecting people rapidly. That is a prime example where the minister did give the answer. It will be there in Hansard. I could just hear the answer. I believe the Leader of the Opposition didn't, and that is because those behind him were interjecting loudly. A minister can conclude their answer at any time. So that is a prime example of why interjections are completely counterproductive. If there is a repeat of that, with those levels of interjections, there will be no warnings for the rest of the day, there will be no mentions, there will just be ejections.