Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a question for you, one that would ordinarily come immediately after question time but obviously normal proceedings were interrupted. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked you about the incident last Thursday afternoon at the doors at the back of the House. Today the member for Longman has written to you, advising that he witnessed the members for Rankin and Franklin push their way through after the attendant had begun closing the doors. I'm sure you'll agree that the rules must be applied impartially and equally to all members regardless of party affiliation. When will you update the House on the progress of your investigation into the incident last Thursday?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question and, as I indicated to him earlier today, I will be responding to the Leader of the Opposition's question, and I indicated to the member for Longman, subsequent to his correspondence before he raised this issue, I'd be responding directly in the House today—which I'm about to do if the member the Fadden could just resume his seat.

In response to the queries from the Leader of the Opposition and from the honourable member for Longman, I have undertaken to extend my deliberations in relation to the serious incident on Tuesday evening this week in the chamber and also to consider the circumstances at a division at approximately 12:30 pm on Thursday 23 March last week.

Based on the routine reports produced at the time by the chamber and parliamentary security staff involved, the circumstances of last Thursday's division are these. After I'd ordered that the doors be locked, there was a delay in closing the main ceremonial doors of the chamber. During the delay, several members walked through the doors. One walked several steps into the chamber and two walked behind, pausing at the junction of the ceremonial doors and the door into the attendants' office, although they were intending to enter. I gave two further orders to lock the doors.

The Serjeant-at-Arms on duty approached the members and indicated that the first member should leave, advising that the Speaker had ordered that the doors be locked prior to them entering. All three members then left immediately. The doors were locked. The members were not counted in the division.

The reports from both the Sergeant's office and the Department of Parliamentary Services made at the time did not identify any physical contact between the staff and the members. Yesterday, a review of the video of last Thursday in the chamber confirmed the details provided in the contemporaneous staff report. As a final check, the staff involved were expressly queried about whether there might have been any physical contact between them and the members, and the staff confirmed there was none.

I would like to distinguish this situation from what occurred on Tuesday this week. Members who were outside and without the ability to directly hear my voice attempted to enter an open door and left when asked to immediately. On Tuesday, members who were already in the chamber and were able to hear my call defied the chair and left the chamber. Further, when asked to return to the chamber they refused to do so. In the process of the departure, as we know, a staff member was injured. These situations are not the same.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members of the requirements of standing order 129. When a division is taken and after the Speaker has ordered the doors to be locked, no member may enter or leave the chamber until after the division. It doesn't matter whether the doors have been able to be fully closed, the point at which the order is given from the chair is the point at which no member is allowed to enter or leave the chamber.