Women wearing burqas will be separated from the public and forced to sit with schoolchildren in a glassed-off area of federal Parliament's public galleries under security measures announced on Thursday.
The move by Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and Senate President Stephen Parry will apply while police agencies review security arrangements in the building. It has provoked a storm of protest from the opposition, Greens, human rights and religious groups and prompted questions about Prime Minister Tony Abbott's call for Muslim leaders to support "Team Australia" and back his new counter-terrorism laws.
The decision comes after Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi asked that a ban be considered amid criticism of the controversial headwear from Liberal MP George Christensen and Palmer United senator Jacqui Lambie.
Ms Bishop and Senator Parry said the step would require "persons with facial coverings entering the galleries of the House of Representatives and Senate [to] be seated in the enclosed galleries. This will ensure that persons with facial coverings can continue to enter the chamber galleries, without needing to be identifiable."
People who wished to visit private areas of the building who have a facial covering will now not be permitted to enter building unless they temporarily remove the covering to allow security to identify them, in a "culturally appropriate manner".
Senator Parry said the change was an interim measure and that "if there is an incident or someone is interjecting from the gallery, which as senators would know happens from time to time, they need to be identified quickly and easily so they can be removed for that interjection".
The move to isolate people with face coverings such as burqas and niqabs from the rest of the population comes after Fairfax Media revealed on Wednesday that Mr Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, had privately told Mr Christensen she also supported a ban on the garment in the federal Parliament for security reasons.
That prompted the Prime Minister to express sympathy on Wednesday for those of his MPs who have concerns about the burqa on security grounds and argue the federal Parliament should be governed by appropriate rules that required people to be identifiable. He declined to comment further on the matter on Thursday.
But before the revised security rules were announced, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said people entering the Parliament should be identifiable but said that, unlike the Prime Minister, she did not find the garment confronting.
"I'm not confronted by clothing...some may be offended by it, some may be confronted by it but in Australia we have a choice, and that's that kind of choice and society we fight to defend," she said.
After the new rules were announced, Muslim Women's Association executive officer Maha Abdo said the ruling created division and could create divisions in "Team Australia".
"I can't believe they are segregating us. Muslim women wearing the niqab [a veil similar to the burqa but which leaves the eyes uncovered] don't go in to Parliament in high numbers," she said.
The NSW Bar Association issued a statement in response to the developments in federal Parliament on Thursday.
"Comments and actions which purport to link the wearing of clothing based on religious beliefs to risks relating to terrorism and particular races, nationalities or ethnicities may constitute racial vilification under the [NSW anti-discrimination Act...] or offensive behaviour under 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act," said Arthur Moses SC the junior vice-president of the Association.
Human rights commissioner Tim Wilson said there was "no justification" for the new security arrangements and that "if there was a danger then why would we sit people with children?"
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said he had sought an explanation from Ms Bishop for the ruling and that he was "not sure why a person needs to be kept behind glass once they've been identified and security screened".
Constitutional scholar George Williams said section 116 of the constitution covered religious freedom but "that only protects people against Commonwealth laws, it doesn't sound like there is Commonwealth law in this case in which case the protections are not likely to apply, so yes, I think this can be imposed without a constitutional problem."
