Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business has indicated that he has some questions to ask of me. He has indicated five. I think that is excessive. We will hear two and we will see how we go.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I have a question under standing order 103. Madam Speaker, can you confirm the advice of the President of the other place this morning that you had not received advice from ASIO, the AFP or the security office of the Department of Parliamentary Services when you decided to segregate sections of the public galleries of the parliament?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can advise the House that the President and I made a decision on advice that was given to us that there was an action planned that would have disrupted the business of the House. We would have been derelict in our duty if we had not dealt with it. We made an interim ruling. We said that the question of face coverings was relevant because of the need to identify people who disrupt from the galleries, and there was no private space available to the entry to these galleries for face identification. So the interim ruling was made. Today we have issued a further ruling which now says that people entering with face coverings will be facially identified at the point of entry of the building, where there is a private space where people can be facially identified before coming in, and therefore the other ruling is not necessary, because they can simply then come through into the chamber.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a further question under standing order 103, Madam Speaker. The President of the other place also referred to receiving advice about a threat of disruption to the parliament. Madam Speaker, can you inform the House as to whether or not the advice of that threat of disruption came from the office of the Prime Minister or a different source?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I happen to uphold the decisions that have been made by previous speakers, and I will not discuss the questions of where advice comes from on security matters. That is two. No. 3?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, under standing under 103, there is not a limit. Previously there has been disruptive conduct in the public galleries from groups such as anti-climate-change groups and farming groups and protesters who you yourself had joined on the front lawns of parliament. Could the Speaker please consult with the clerks and relevant departments and advise the House why segregation was never required for these groups?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can give you the answer with regard to the need for facial recognition: for the simple reason that, when somebody is disruptive in the House, that person may be banned from the parliament for a period of 24 or more hours, and, to know if that person is attempting to re-enter the parliament, there is a need for facial recognition. None of the other groups, to my knowledge, had a problem with facial recognition.

Opposition members: But they could disrupt the parliament!

The question is recognition, and also there are a number of people who are banned from this parliament who need to be recognised, as security issues.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respect that, Madam Speaker. As you know, my question related to segregation. On the evening of 2 October, the day of the announcement of the new policy for the public galleries, it was reported that the Prime Minister had asked you to reconsider the policy. However, the next day a journalist reported that your spokesman had said no request had been received from the Prime Minister to change this policy. Did you, Madam Speaker, receive a request from the Prime Minister to reconsider the policy?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a word, no.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The final question, Madam Speaker—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good, because, despite the fact that I have tried to have estimates in this chamber—I am reluctant to tell you—I have failed to so do, so we are not having them by default. But go ahead with the other question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly. Once again, this question is under standing order 103. Would Madam Speaker please report back to the House, after taking advice from the clerks and appropriate agencies, as to what documents can be properly tabled in the House so that members can better understand the logic of the two decisions in relation to the public galleries?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no need to table documents. The decisions have been made, the circulars have been issued and action is in accordance with those.