CHAMBER DRESS CODE

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (15:36): On Thursday 28 October we had an unfortunate series of events here which started with you, Madam Speaker, sending out a woman wearing a large hat. As members know, where I sit I cannot see anyone behind me whatsoever.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A ruling that was wrong.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Yes, the honourable member says that the ruling was wrong. One of my colleagues thought that it was someone highlighting the Melbourne Cup, which reminds me of a time when Susan Lenehan wore a large hat in here for Melbourne Cup. One of the Liberal members made some remark and she asked a question about whether people could wear a wig or a toupée in here.

Anyway, putting that aside, what was unfortunate was that none of us here was told that this was an organised stunt. It turned out that it was meant to be a celebration of women getting the vote, which I am a great supporter of and I would have been happy to celebrate it. When the person was sent out for wearing a hat, I thought, 'This is strange. I've never heard of this ruling before,' and that is what prompted me to ask a question. When I sat down, the member for Mount Gambier tapped me on the shoulder and said, 'Do you realise that someone in the gallery is wearing a scarf?' Well, my question did not mention a scarf.

That raises the point that questions in here should not be dictated to by what people are wearing or doing in the gallery. It would be quite inappropriate. The question I asked, I found out subsequently, did not cause any angst amongst any of the people in the gallery. In fact, the woman who was reported in the media as being upset was not upset by my question at all because her English is very poor, I find out now.

She did not even understand the question I was asking. What upset her was when someone—and I do not know who—got a police officer to remove her from the gallery, and that did upset her and brought her to tears. I went out to speak to that woman, but the leader of the group said, 'She's gone.' She said, 'She's fine. She's been here before. She has limited English.' She did not know what question I was asking; she did not understand it. But she certainly understood when she was removed at the direction of someone (I do not know who) by the police officer, and I think that was very unfortunate.

That situation was aggravated by the member for Bright rushing up to the gallery. They were guests of the member for Adelaide, not the member for Bright, so it was quite inappropriate. I had the member for Torrens coming over to give me a serve, and then, on radio, the minister for multiculturalism said that this is what happens when people show lack of consideration. All of it was targeting me when I was not responsible in any way for the distress of that woman.

I do not care what people in the gallery wear; it would not upset me if they were naked. I do not have a problem with people wearing the burqa and I do not support a ban on the burqa—anyway, the woman was not wearing a burqa. I do not have a problem with it, and I do not support people who want to ban it, like Cory Bernardi and Fred Nile; I do not agree with that. Some have tried to link the two, but my bill is about covering the face. I will not talk about that bill now because it is not appropriate to talk about it in any detail, but it is about covering the face; it is not about covering the head or the hair at all.

I think what comes out of this is that you have to be very careful—and it applies to all of us—about using parliament for stunts. They may have well-meaning purposes but they might turn into something that actually demeans the parliament. I have been in here—not just in this chamber, but in this building—when people have engaged in stunts that could have had very serious consequences, one where someone nearly choked and another where someone interfered with a vehicle. They were different types of stunt, but they show what can happen when people engage in those sorts of things.

However, what really concerned me was that a journalist sitting next to the woman who was supposedly aggrieved by my question but who was not (the journalist said that the woman was not at all upset until a police officer removed her) said that the member for Bright told the woman 'Don't listen to that stupid man down there,' obviously meaning me. I do not think that is appropriate behaviour for a member of this parliament in the gallery to speak about a member down here in those terms. I believe it is very inappropriate, and it shows a lack of proper behaviour on the part of that member. I would appreciate an apology but I do not expect one, given the sort of behaviour that occurred.

I think it is important that we all acknowledge that we have security here for people in the gallery. As I said, I do not care what they are or are not wearing, but I think we have to be careful that we do not demean the parliament and engage in tactics that should not be countenanced in our code of conduct.