Well .. good night
All compelling days must end, and today has been compelling for all the wrong reasons.
Just as well Bill Heffernan isn’t easily astonished.
It’s time to summarise and fold our tent for this evening, particularly if Cory Bernardi is resorting to wry humour. Exhibit A, an aside a moment ago to Labor’s John Faulkner.
Bernardi:
I don’t like flexibility, I like rigid authoritarianism.
Today, Monday:
- The prime minister paid Australia’s respects to the new president in Jakarta; and the Abbott government, or more pertinently the foreign minister, secured legal authority to send special forces into Iraq.
- After that, a slow slide into crazy town.
- Senate estimates dealt with the circumstances leading up to the controversial decision on October 2 to ban women wearing burqas from the public galleries.
- The following facts about this unfortunate incident duly emerged.
- The presiding officers made the decision to ban head wear without reference to the AFP or to Asio.
- The decision was made on the basis that parliament house was at imminent risk of a protest from people – possibly men – wearing burqas, who intended to disrupt Question Time.
- Nobody could quite recall how that information came into the shared domain until a DPS official could, in fact, recall it.
- The information came from police, who got the information from a media crew on the forecourt of parliament house.
- It later turned out that said media crew had got the information from a tips and rumours line on 2UE. Naturally, the protest never eventuated. As a consequence, a ban was issued and relations between the parliament and the Muslim community were damaged very badly for absolutely no reason.
- Just because national affairs hadn’t quite covered itself in enough glory – then there was an outbreak of semantics. Tony Abbott said on October 3 he’d sought a reversal of the burqa ban from the Speaker. Bronwyn Bishop said the request didn’t happen because it wasn’t a formal request, even though she wasn’t actually asked whether the request was informal or formal, just whether or not there had been one.
Can you bear it? I can’t, actually.
So let’s have a rest and try again in the morning.
Just for the remaining segment of the population still interested in facts, this is what what has got Richard di Natale upset.
This was advice from police at the parliament house security briefing.
Some simple things that can certainly help us and help DPS in providing a safe and secure environment at parliament house. As mentioned we want you to wear your pass, we want it visibly displayed. We want you to consider your environment, ensure that if you’re in an external office – closing blinds, reducing line of sight external to the building. If you have people wandering around that you’re not sure of, ask them what their business is. If you’re not comfortable doing that please approach a PSS or an AFP member and we would be more than happy to engage that person in that regard. Consider your own personal movement, personal routines. Some common sense approaches around varying timings, routines, locations that you undertake you physical activity, the way your drive into work – that sort of thing.
Green senator Richard di Natale, persisting in the face of all today’s evidence that we are residing in a post fact universe.
We either have to keep our blinds open, or we don’t.
Poor man. Someone send help down to the finance committee.
Stat.
While still in the territory of rumours and riddles, riddle me this.
- On September 19 Tony Abbott referred to “chatter” about parliament house. “The chatter involving parliament house was chatter between Australians in Syria and Iraq and their supporters here in Australia. Numbers of AFP in parliament house are ramping up already, the armed element in parliament house will increase and people will notice that security in parliament house is tighter, very quickly.”
How does this fit with the evidence given today that the threat level at parliament house has not changed since 2010? Surely the threat level would increase in such circumstances? What am I missing here?
Let’s get out of the hot box and back to tips and rumours.
Here’s the source of the burqa ban – I kid you not.
HOST ONE: We’ve got one here from Media Manipulator saying a lobby group and at least one TV station are considering sending someone in a full burqa into parliament house in Canberra today.
HOST TWO: Oh that’s odds on isn’t it?
HOST ONE: Someone’s got to do it.
HOST TWO: Well there it is, that’s the tip coming through from Canberra.
Updated
Meanwhile, back in the finance committee, Penny Wong is taking a very close interest in mobile bars in the Speaker’s office; and an item being referred to as a hot box. I’m not sure what the hot box is, but I think it relates to food.
The political day is officially on drugs.
So let’s adjust the chain of events again. The Nine crew on the forecourt of parliament house (apparently) got their information from 2UE tips and rumours before passing it to the police who passed it to the presiding officers who then proceeded to ban burqas in public galleries.
Stop. Think. Marvel.
When evidence based policy couldn’t get any better ..
Another twist - those TV crews waiting for a non-existent burqa protest may have heard this on @NewsTalk2UE http://t.co/khfqoEi6RK
— Frank Keany (@redneckninja) October 20, 2014
My colleague Paul Farrell is watching immigration estimates and has kindly sent me this update:
The senate legal and constitutional affairs committee has just gotten very interesting. There has been considerable debate about recent events on Nauru, after allegations were made against Save the Children staff that they may have breached Commonwealth disclosure laws. The allegations were contained in a Transfield intelligence report, and the matter has been referred to the AFP for investigation. In response Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has referred the immigration minister’s office for investigation to the AFP to determine how the Transfield report found its way into the hands of the Daily Telegraph several weeks ago. But in a strange twist it now appears that Hanson-Young has obtained her own copy of the Transfield document that contains the central allegations, which she began distributing to senators during the estimates hearing.
When Committee chair senator Ian Macdonald realised what the senator was attempting to table he halted proceedings so the committee could debate whether or not they would allow the document to be tabled. The committee considered the matter in closed chambers. The committee has refused to allow the report to be tabled.
Macdonald:
The committee has endorsed my ruling that the document cannot be tabled on the basis of which we understand it to be, and we’ll take it from there.
Updated
Just think about that chain of events for five seconds.
Rumours
This day is unbelievably superb. Officials in estimates have now given evidence that the police got their information about the supposed burqa protest on October 2 from .. wait for it .. the TV crew on the forecourt of parliament house.
So, to recap: we have a crew relaying a rumour to police, who then relayed a rumour to DPS, who then relayed a rumour to the presiding officers, who then proceeded to ban women in burqas from the public galleries. Oh yes, and the protest NEVER HAPPENED.
Evidence. Based. Policy.
Five stars.
Updated
Labor’s John Faulkner is back now on the decision earlier in the year to downgrade security arrangements at parliament house to save two dollars fifty. We’ve had a downgrading of security followed by three successive upgrades of security, he says. Confusing, no? Not confusing, says DPS head Carol Mills. Just the nature of the world.
Senate president, Stephen Parry. On the merits of ‘stay out of the line of fire and vary your route to work’ – outside of an actual war zone, when the threat level at parliament house has not changed in four years.
Parry:
I would describe the advice as over cautious.
The threat level at parliament house is the same as it was in 2010
While I’m wrangling the response from the PMO, and peppering you with Lewis Carroll, the finance committee of estimates is going full random. Green senator Richard di Natale is going back over a briefing that was given at the height of the enhanced security hysteria at parliament house. I actually chose not to report it at the time, given I could not fathom the public interest in sharing matters that are not normally shared. But I think it’s ok to go there now, in an environment of relative calm.
In a police briefing several weeks ago, occupants of the building were advised to keep away from the windows to avoid snipers, and vary their routes to work if they felt concerned. Apparently. I wasn’t there, but this is fact, according to accounts from people who were there.
Carol Mills is asked about this advice, did she agree with it?
I have certainly not closed my blinds nor varied my route to work.
Further questioning yields a more than salient fact. The threat level at parliament house is the same as it was in 2010. It’s medium – despite AFP blokes wandering around with machine guns.
Mills:
That’s correct.
“It seems a shame,” the Walrus said, “to play them such a trick, After we’ve brought them out so far, And made them trot so quick!”
The Carpenter said nothing but: “The butter’s spread too thick!”
“I weep for you,” the Walrus said: “I deeply sympathize.” With sobs and tears he sorted out/Those of the largest size/Holding his pocket-handkerchief/ Before his streaming eyes.
“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter, “You’ve had a pleasant run! Shall we be trotting home again?”
But answer came there none/And this was scarcely odd, because/
They’d eaten every one.
Prime minister's office response to Bishop on the burqa ban
I’ve had a conversation with the prime minister’s office this afternoon to try and ascertain why Tony Abbott said on October 3 that he’d asked the Speaker to reverse the burqa ban, and Madam Speaker told parliament today that he did not.
Here is the response from the PMO:
The prime minister spoke to the speaker the day the revised security arrangements were announced.
He made clear his views on the changed arrangements. No formal request was made to change the arrangements as they are a matter for the presiding officers.
So, essentially, their explantion is he did speak to her, and indicate his (negative) view about the events to of the day – but given the bureaucratic technicalities (these issues are a matter for the presiding officers) – it was not a formal request.
It was an informal request.
Here is Senator Heffernan, who ignores the suggestion from Bernardi to be on his best behaviour.
Heffernan, to the head of DPS, Carol Mills:
I hear you’ve been to see the Queen.
Mills:
May I say the Queen chose not to see me.
Liberal senator Cory Bernardi has issued a warning in the finance committee. Senator Bill Heffernan is expected at any moment. The pause which follows that update is as significant as his Law and Order moment earlier today. The earlier pause was confusion. This pause could denote dread.
Senate president Stephen Parry is persisting meanwhile with his various explanations and rationales concerning the burka ban.
There’s no point in banning people if they can come back into the building disguised.
The Walrus and the Carpenter/Walked on a mile or so/And then they rested on a rock/Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood/And waited in a row.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “to talk of many things:
Of shoes/and ships/and sealing-wax/Of cabbages/and kings/And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings.
(I cannot for the life of me understand why #auspol has decreed today boring. Today is a gift that keeps on giving.)
This is what Tony Abbott said the day after the controversy on October 3.
Not a lot of grey area here.
Now, yesterday the presiding officers made an interim decision that people wearing burqas and other attire that obscured the face wouldn’t be allowed in the public galleries, they’d have to go into the glassed-in galleries.
I asked the Speaker to rethink that decision and my understanding is that it was an interim decision, that it would be looked at again in the light of security advice that will come in coming days and I’m sure that the matter will be fully resolved before the parliament comes back in a fortnight.
Very curious, this. On the night of October 2, the prime minister’s office briefed that Abbott would seek a reversal of the ban. But both the presiding officers – Bronwyn Bishop and Stephen Parry – say this didn’t happen.
Bishop says Tony Abbott did not ask for the burqa ban to be withdrawn
Question time is over. Manager of opposition business Tony Burke has several questions now for the Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, over the burqa ban.
Did Bishop consult the AFP or Asio? The Speaker doesn’t answer that question directly. (The Senate president Stephen Parry said earlier today that neither Asio nor the AFP were consulted.)
Burke: Did the advice on the day about the security risk come from the prime minister’s office?
Bishop:
I will not discuss where advice comes from on security matters.
Burke points to previous protests which have not required people to be seggregated. What’s the difference?
No clear answer there.
Burke: Did the prime minister ask you to withdraw the ruling?
In a word, no.
Updated
Greg Hunt wants to hug the shadow environment minister, Mark Butler. Then he pronounces Butler not dead, only sleeping. Then he tries to pretend that the treasurer Joe Hockey didn’t make a mistake last week when he tried to argue that Australia wasn’t a high per capita emitter when facts clearly demonstrate that Australia is a high per capita emitter. Then Hunt tries to argue that abolishing a carbon price is good for the environment.
The only reprieve from the nonsense is no mention of a walrus.
Ah! Mark Butler mentions the walrus. Can Hunt confirm his source for the existence of the walrus in Antarctica is the same source invoked for the existence of the Tasmanian tiger?
Speaker Bronwyn Bishop:
The time has come, the walrus said.
The only reasonable response, really.
Thanks to Crikey’s Bernard Keane for this comprehensive summary of a Dorothy Dixer from the environment minister Greg Hunt.
Hunt explaining that an African swallow and a European swallow together could have carried a walrus from the North Pole to Antarctica #qt
— Bernard Keane (@BernardKeane) October 20, 2014
Things are so gripping down there in the chamber that people are pretending to get excited about spending on spin doctors in defence. There has been an audible OOOOOOh following a gotcha question from Labor’s David Feeney.
Stuart Robert has stopped saying look over there briefly to contend that there are fewer defence spinners now than there used to be. (One for ABC fact checkers, go.)
Robert is actually outdoing Bill Shorten in the mixed metaphor stakes. He even fluffs his punch line. The Coalition will not be lectured about defence and spinning.
Not now. Not never.
Not never. True, dat.
While Stuart Robert continues to shout, look over there, look here. Because you can’t have too much gorgeous. Good for the soul.
Uncertain times, a case study.
I'd like to congratulate @warrentrussmp for leading the govt away from monotonous blue ties to multi-coloured parliamentary neckware. #qt
— The Matt Hatter (@MattGlassDarkly) October 20, 2014
Look at these gorgeous girls. Mike Bowers met this group down on the forecourt a bit earlier.
I should have a wide shot in soon of these kids watching Question Time from the enclosed galleries where the presiding officers sought to situate women in burqas at the beginning of October.
The shadow agriculture minister Joel Fitzgibbon wants to know how many families have been given drought assistance. Joyce says over 4,000 have been given household allowance. Fitzgibbon says he isn’t interested in household allowance.
Perhaps there wasn’t a segue to the dams. If there was it was a small one.
You can’t compare apples with oranges.
Stuart Robert, fresh from shouting look over there, has now resorted to the fruit bowl on defence pay. I’m clearly quite stupid because this man is saying lots of words, none of which make any sense to me.
Ah, here’s Barnaby Joyce. A turn for the better when it comes to words making sense. He’s opening with cows and love. Yes, he is. Shortly there will be a segue to the dams.
It’s Captain Cronulla’s turn to address our troubled and uncertain times. The immigration minister Scott Morrison is telling the chamber how he’s keeping Australia safe by sending the rest of the world a message that folks just aren’t welcome if they come unauthorised in boats, but planes are ok as long as you don’t mind a bit of biometric screening. Morrison in this Dorothy Dixer appreciates several things. He appreciates the intrinsic strength of the government, the agencies, and the biometrics. He’s sorry for the inconvenience for the travelling public. Then, sadly, he runs out of time.
Justice minister Michael Keenan explains how the Abbott government is keeping people safe from terrorism. It must be noted that Keenan is beginning to look less terrified when called upon to speak in public. He used to look completely terrified, which actually speaks well of his character. (Many politicians are born loving the sound of their own voice. People who are nervous are actually more like the rest of us.)
Bill Shorten wants to know why the government isn’t keeping the ADF safe from penury. (This relates to a low ball pay offer currently before the ADF.)
Look over there, shouts defence junior woodchuck, Stuart Robert. (He doesn’t actually, but he may as well be shouting look over there.) Shame, Bill, shame. The cupboard is bear.
Bare, sorry.
Robert:
We’d love to pay our soldiers more, but we simply don’t have the money.
Truss then gets a Dorothy Dixer in order to inform the House that legal authority has now been secured to deploy special forces in Iraq.
Labor is back on ebola. Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek wants to know what consular support is being provided to volunteer health workers treating ebola patients, and whether there are contingency plans to remove people should that become necessary. Truss essentially says if you want a briefing, I’ll give you one.
Question time
It being 2pm – I’ll depart estimates for now.
With Tony Abbott overseas, Warren Truss is in the big chair. First question from Bill Shorten, with the G20 coming up, what international leadership is Australia showing on ebola?
Truss is working through the various things the government is doing about ebola (without actually sending health workers to the source of the outbreak.)
Our response has been appropriate in the circumstances, we remain willing and keen to assist in whatever way we can.
Labor’s John Faulkner has been very preoccupied throughout the morning about the security committee not meeting. When I say very preoccupied I mean very preoccupied.
Mills confirms the evidence that was given by the Black Rod earlier this morning: it was the presiding officers who initiated the ban in the public galleries. She doesn’t think there was a single initiator.
Mills noted just before the discussion around security arrangements on October 2 was robust. Did this mean there was disagreement, Faulkner asks? No, Mills says. Just a number of options to consider quickly. Mills says advice was not sought from outside the building: meaning Asio and the AFP. She says there wasn’t time on the day.
It was simply not practical in the timeframe.
Updated
The finance committee is back from the lunch break. Up now in estimates is the department of parliamentary services head: Carol Mills.
Mills is telling the committee that the specific risk of a protest (on the day when the burqa ban was issued, October 2) was brought to the attention of DPS by the police. Mid-morning, police told DPS there was a possible protest looming at the house. DPS then informed other interested parties in the building.
(Well that’s one question addressed at least, who thought this protest was possible. Thus far, we’ve had a crew on the forecourt as the source of the misinformation, now we have the police.)
Updated
Speaking as we were of foreign fighters, the chair of parliament’s joint intelligence committee, Victorian Liberal MP Dan Tehan, is on the ABC now. He’s telling host Lyndal Curtis the government didn’t over reach in the legislation, despite the fact his committee has recommended changes to the foreign fighters package.
Q: You did recommend a number of areas where there was strong safeguards and more oversight was needed. Did the government overreach a little bit?
Tehan:
I don’t think they overreached. They consulted with the intelligence agencies, with the federal police and with the community, and then put in the legislation what it thought, on balance, needed to be done.
Obviously the committee has had another look at that and we have put forward some recommendations but the important thing was we heard evidence from both the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security saying that they have the oversight powers to be able to deal with this legislation.
Tehan was also asked about the burqa. His view is the prime minister got it right in opposing the ban.
I love the fact that the people come here and they can walk over the top of the parliament, walk over the top of their elected representatives. It is a magnificent building. The access to it is something that we should preserve for everyone. So I think the PM got this call right.
(For those people who haven’t been to the parliament, this is a literal statement – you can walk over the top of the building. It’s one of its charms.)
Yes I know that quiz is tendentious. Yes, yes.
Back, briefly, to dams. I pointed you in the direction earlier of a drop the government gave to The Australian this morning about its new green paper on agricultural competitiveness. This has been released by the agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce today.
The pre-briefing seemed to be big on dams. Big damnation dreaming. The documents suggest small on dams. But then again, one person’s big dam is another person’s small dam.
While we wait for estimates to resume, here’s more from the Leyonhjelm quiz. (See the post at 12.08pm if you have no idea what I’m talking about.)
Q: If this legislation is passed, to find yourself in a listed terrorist organisation, you would need to be:
a) Part of an organisation full of terrorists.
b) Part of an organisation that advocates terrorism.
c) Part of an organisation where a few members have promoted violence.
Lunchtime summary
It’s clear that we are not getting back to the department of parliamentary services before the lunch break, so let’s use the moment to take stock.
Monday, in politics:
- The foreign minister Julie Bishop says Australian special forces now have legal authority to proceed with their advise and assist role in Iraq.
- The prime minister, Tony Abbott, is in Jakarta to welcome the new Indonesian president Joko Widodo.
- The presiding officers have now backed off from banning the burqa from the public galleries of parliament house – issuing new guidelines where security issues can be assessed at the door.
- Senate estimates hearings are underway. The processes leading up to the burqa debacle have been front and centre in the finance committee this morning.
- We have learned the decision to ban the burqa on October 2 was one of the Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop and the Senate president, Stephen Parry – not Asio or the AFP.
- This decision was taken in response to a protest that never actually eventuated. Senate president Stephen Parry has tried to assert that despite the obvious panicked response to a non-issue, the decision was credible and proportionate in the circumstances.
The finance committee has been hearing from Phil Bowen of the parliamentary budget office. The Liberal senator Dean Smith is enjoying a long Q&A session with Bowen traversing the dangers of fiscal profligacy.
Smith is doing most of the talking. He’s moved on to Henry Ergas. Possibly that development has called time on Penny Wong’s patience. She wants to move on to the department of parliamentary services, and back to the burqas. She advises Smith that it doesn’t matter how well he behaves, he won’t be promoted. She wants this wrapped up.
Bowen ploughs on.
Economic shocks are possible.
The LDP senator David Leyonhjelm is, meanwhile, running a quiz show. This quiz show is called ‘does any working journalist actually understand the foreign fighters legislation that is expected, shortly, to pass the parliament.’
A sample of the questions which he’s distributed. It’s a pick-a-box sort of scenario.
Q: This legislation means that if the AFP broke into your house so they could get into the neighbouring property, and you told your neighbour about it later over the garden fence:
a: The AFP would be disappointed, but would respect your right to free speech.
b: Some federal police officers would never speak to you again.
c: You could go to jail.
Q: If the foreign fighters bill is passed, how will you be able to tell if a burglar entered your home or if it was the federal police?
a: A burglar would be messier.
b: The AFP would be wearing uniforms.
c: The AFP will send you a letter at some time in the future.
(By all means, have a crack at the answers.)
While time permits, I can record another development from estimates this morning. Labor had sought to call the secretary of the department of prime minister and cabinet, Ian Watt, to answer questions about the nomination panel for the boards of the ABC and SBS. There have been questions on notice for some period of time relating to the appointment in July of Janet Albrechtson and a former deputy Liberal leader Neil Brown to the nomination panel for the ABC and SBS. These appointments were made by Watt.
Watt had indicated to Labor (by way of correspondence) that he would attend finance estimates if invited to attend by the committee. But Labor says the finance committee has today ruled against an appearance by Watt. The opposition is, naturally, unhappy about the development – which follows on from the effort by Liberal senator Cory Bernardi to bundle photographers out of the hearing this morning dealing with the burqa ban.
For the record, the intrepid snappers ended up staying.
Cormann: I was playing on my accent
Recently, I discovered Last Action Hero – an Arnie movie I had somehow missed. Upon viewing it, I then understood why the world had conspired to protect me from that particular contribution.
Anyway, that was just a random aside. Back to the main game. Politics Live readers will know that the finance minister Mathias Cormann got himself into a tangle with the girly man Arnieism over the weekend.
Fresh from releasing details of the Medibank share float in Melbourne on Monday, Cormann defended himself again, saying he used “a bit of humour” to make a serious point that Labor was opposing its own previously budgeted savings measures.
Bill Shorten doesn’t even have what it takes to get Labor to support their own savings … So people across Australia well understand what it is that I was saying.
I used a bit of humour, playing on my accent, and of course, there was absolutely no intention to reflect on girls.
The intention was to entirely reflect on Bill Shorten and his lack of performance when it comes to doing what needs to be done to repair the budget.
Speaking of nice – the first opportunity I’ve had to post this lovely chamber shot from Mike Bowers this morning.
Preparing for the week.
Unsuccessful is a much nicer word.
Labor’s Penny Wong is back with inquiries about the Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop’s recent bid to be president of the IPU. Wong would like to know what the senate president, Stephen Parry, knows about the “failed” bid. (Bishop, sadly did not succeed in her aspiration).
Parry bristles at the word failed.
Parry:
I don’t think it’s a failed candidacy.
Wong:
Q: She wanted to be the president and now she’s not, what word would you like me to use?
The resolution of this conundrum was unsuccessful.
Updated
The finance committee has resumed with Liberal Cory Bernardi pursuing the new senate inquiry into Campbell Newman’s (alleged) Queensland wickednesses being pursued technically by Clive and Jacqui and Dio and Glen – but actually, Clive. It looks like Bernardi anticipated the clerk of the Senate, Rosemary Laing, might be outraged about the inquiry and its incredibly wide terms of reference. She looks rather relaxed, though. There are precedents for such inquiries, she believes. Bernardi is moving on now to the (alleged) process crimes of the former Labor former minister, Bob Carr.
Updated
It would be good to be able to ignore stupid interventions in politics, wouldn’t it? I wish I had that luxury.
New, from the collected feelpinions of Jacqui Lambie.
The decision today to allow burqas and other forms of identity concealing items of dress to be worn in Australia’s parliament will put a smile on the face of the overseas Islamic extremists and their supporters in Australia – who view the burqa or niqab as flags for extremism.
To the Islamic extremists, today’s decision will prove how weak and indecisive we have become as a nation and how our PM lacks the courage of his convictions when it comes to Australia’s national security.
Today’s decision will boost the extremists’ morale and encourage them to commit more atrocities and acts of violence against Australians – so that they can create a world where every woman is forced by their religious leaders’ law to wear a burqa or niqab.
Updated
Meanwhile, back in girly man land, thanks to Daniel Hurst. Let’s celebrate our great shareholding democracy.
Shares in Medibank Private will be sold for between $1.55 and $2 each, indicating the share float could raise the government between $4.3bn and $5.5bn.
The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, announced details of the share float of the government-owned private health insurer in Melbourne this morning. He said Australian retail investors would be able to apply for shares from 28 October.
“A price cap for retail investors means that Australian residents who choose to apply for shares will not pay any more than $2.00 per share, even if the final price is set above the indicative range,” Cormann said in a statement.
“At the indicative price range, the indicative market capitalisation of Medibank Private would be $4,269 – $5,508 million, which would place it among the top 100 companies on the ASX.”
He said the government intended to sell down its entire shareholding and use the funds on its asset recycling scheme to encourage infrastructure construction. More than 750,000 Australians pre-registered their interest in receiving a share offer prospectus.
Burqa bans – what we know thus far
The committee is now on a short break so let’s summarise what we have learned this morning.
- The decision on October 2 to seat visitors wearing full face coverings in the enclosed galleries of parliament house was made by the presiding officers – the Speaker and the Senate president – not the AFP or Asio.
- The decision was made in response to a suggestion (it’s still not clear from who, apart from a film crew on the parliamentary forecourt), that a small group of burqa clad protestors, including, possibly, men, intended to enter parliament on October 2 to disrupt Question Time.
- The senate president Stephen Parry says the source of this information was the Black Rod and the office of Bronwyn Bishop.
- But perplexingly, the Black Rod has told estimates she had no information that the intention of the group (which never actually materialised) was to disrupt Question Time.
-
Parry says (contrary to some reports) the prime minister never instructed him to overturn the ban.
The senate president says he was not contacted by the prime minister’s office to revoke the decision of October 2. (Reports on the evening of October 2 indicated that the prime minister would tell the presiding officers to revoke the decision.)
Parry says the ban has been revoked because now, more durable security measures at the doors of parliament house have been put in place. He won’t comment about whether Bronwyn Bishop was asked by the prime minister or the PMO to change course.
Callinan has just agreed to provide a file note of the meetings on October 2 to the committee.
Updated
Wong:
Q: Did anyone in a facial covering attempt to enter parliament on October 2?
Parry:
Not to my knowledge.
Q: Do you still maintain that advice was credible?
Yes, on the day.
Parry tells senate estimates the AFP and Asio did not seek the burqa ban
Labor’s Penny Wong is trying to run down the source of the rumour about a group of people in burqas (including, possibly, fellows) intending to storm parliament and disrupt Question Time on October 2.
Parry says his source for this information was:
- Bronwyn Bishop’s office, and;
- The Black Rod (who earlier said she had no evidence of any intention to disrupt Question Time.)
Wong points out the inconsistency between Parry’s evidence and Rachel Callinan’s evidence.
Parry suggests the Black Rod needs to reflect on her recollection of various conversations on the day.
Parry is stonewalling, valiantly, on the particulars. He doesn’t want to get into who said what to whom, when. The suggestion is such disclosure may lead to something terrible.
Being pressed – Parry finally coughs up that Asio and the AFP were not involved in that particular decision. The agencies did not seek to seggregate people in full face coverings.
The senate president defends the ban as a prudent decision in the circumstances given the specific risk on the day. Parry says the position was always an interim arrangement. He says the advice was the group intending to enter parliament house on the day could have been men in full face coverings.
(This really is Pythonesque, particularly given the mythical blokes in burqas never actually materialised.)
Actually we’ve moved into Law and Order. Liberal Cory Bernardi steps in to redirect witness Parry.
Q: You are a former police officer?
Parry acknowledges he is a former police officer, yes.
There is a meaningful silence.
Greens leader Christine Milne wonders whether the police have ever raised security concerns about full face coverings in parliament.
Parry:
It’s probably appropriate that I don’t comment on the briefings.
Milne now wants to know whether he’d discussed with his House counterpart, Bronwyn Bishop, taking action against full face coverings before the unfortunate decision on October 2.
Parry says prior discussions did take place.
Yes.
Milne:
Q: Had you made a decision to ban facial coverings prior to the meeting (on October 2)?
Parry:
The answer is no.
Parry says he had no representations from the prime minister’s office in relation to this issue. He won’t say whether Bishop had contact.
Milne is pressing on the discussions between Parry and Bishop on facial coverings. Parry says conversations on this theme is in the mix of everything.
It’s not a focal point.
Welcome to estimates, Senator Parry.
Morning to Mike Bowers who is down there. Or was!
Ban was the decision of parliament's presiding offcers, not security staff
Callinan says the department of parliamentary services drafted two options in response to the events on the day. She says it was the presiding officers who added the ban on the public galleries – a third option – after the discussion.
Callinan:
It was the presiding officers who made the decision.
The DPS options were as follows: to suspend the renewal and issue of sponsored passses; and to insist that photographic ID was required for the issue of escorted passes.
The third option added by the presiding officers was this:
- Persons with facial coverings entering the galleries of the House of Representatives and Senate will 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.
Faulkner asks Callinan did she express a view to the presiding officers about whether or not seggregating people with face coverings was a wise course of action. Callinan says she gave advice but won’t say what it was.
Parry stonewalls:
We noted her advice. I don’t particularly want to go into it.
Updated
Rachel Callinan, the usher of the black rod, is telling Penny Wong that on the day the ban was issued by the presiding officers, she was informed by the security manager that a film crew was down on the parliamentary forecourt in anticipation of a group of people in burqas who intended to enter parliament house. She says there was, initially, no suggestion the intention of the group was to disrupt Question Time. Callinan is going through events on the day, various meetings to determine a response. She says she can’t remember who first raised the risk that Question Time would be disrupted.
Senator Cory Bernardi is concerned about the distractive nature of news photography in this hearing. Senator Faulkner muses out loud that perhaps the press could buy less noisy cameras.
Bernardi says the snappers need to wrap up quickly and exit the committee room. Labor is going mildly ballistic. Estimates is a public process.
Bernardi:
What is it about democracy that you don’t like?
Labor’s Joe Ludwig:
Shutting down transparency.
Labor’s John Faulkner has ever so politely nudged Penny Wong to the side. He’d like to know about meetings of parliament’s security management board. Parry has essentially told the committee the security management board has not met formally either before the burqa ban was imposed, or after that decision was made. He means the presiding officers have met with various people informally.
Faulkner isn’t impressed.
Q: The security management board has not met? Noone’s seen fit to call it together?
Parry:
That’s correct.
Q: Can you assist me as to why?
Parry:
You’d need to ask the chair of the security management board.
Faulkner:
I find it remarkable that noone has seen fit to bring the security management board together.
Sorry for the brief break in transmission – just had to change venues given our earlier than normal launch this morning.
Estimates is now underway. The senate president Stephen Parry has just given evidence in the finance committee by way of an opening statement. He told the committee the burqa ban had been put in place as a temporary measure because of concerns that there was to be a protest at parliament house. He said the presiding officers always meant to replace the ban with something more durable.
Labor’s Penny Wong is welcoming Parry to the table. It’s one of those welcomes where you don’t actually mean welcome.
Updated
Just for the record – we were blown slightly off course by Bronwyn Bishop in Burqa Backflip.
I did mean to post Julie Bishop’s statement earlier following her meetings in Baghdad – one of those masterful DFAT statements saying both something, and nothing.
Bishop:
In my meetings with the Prime Minister Al-Abadi, Foreign Minister Al-Ja’afari, President Masoum, and Council of Representatives Speaker Al-Jabouri, I reiterated Australia’s commitment to provide military assistance to the Iraqi government. I also finalised legal arrangements for the deployment of Australian special forces to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces. I received briefings from Iraqi leaders and international coalition partners on the campaign against ISIL and the current political situation. I emphasised the importance of the Iraqi government’s efforts to deliver policies that share power and resources amongst Iraq’s various communities. I also met groups of minority leaders to hear their concerns and to underline Australia’s close interest in the protection of minorities in Iraq.
Updated
I just contemplated writing a short analysis about how wonderful it is in politics when commonsense ultimately prevails – but it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Why thunder on about that?
Right now, the actual interest lies with any new facts that can be established over the course of the day regarding what was a dumb and inflammatory decision delivered by people who should know better, and who certainly must do better if they have any respect for themselves and the venerable offices they hold.
Sorry, really couldn’t help that.
In happier times.
A couple of additional lines of context on Bronwyn Bishop in Burqa Backflip again from Daniel Hurst – who worked yesterday.
The presiding officers of Australia’s parliament house have backed down from a controversial decision to segregate Muslim women wearing facial coverings such as burqas or niqabs in the public galleries. The speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, and the Senate president, Stephen Parry, met on Sunday to reconsider the “interim access arrangements” announced just over two weeks ago.
Bishop and Parry faced criticism over the decision to force visitors wearing facial coverings to sit in a separate area of parliament’s public gallery shielded by glass panels. The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had called on the pair to rethink the segregation policy, noting that all members of the public in the galleries had already cleared airport-style security checkpoints.
Just for all the estimates nerds out there (besides me, I mean.) You know who you are.
As I’ve flagged, today’s inquisitorial magic undertaken in small committee rooms includes Senate president Parry coming before the Finance and Administration committee; immigration officials at Legal and Constitutional Affairs; infrastructure and regional development at the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee; and environment in the spotlight at Environment and Communications committee.
Can you bear it?
(Thanks to Daniel Hurst for this rundown.)
A reader would prefer Bronwyn Bishop in burqa backflip on the basis that it sounds more acrobatic. More power to that arm.
This stunning outbreak of basic common sense won’t stop Labor from running an inquisition about this issue in Senate estimates later this morning. Of key interest will be what advice the prime minister’s office gave to the presiding officers concerning the initial ruling, which banned head coverings in the main public gallery.
Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, responding to the news this morning on Twitter:
It’s welcome that the Speaker has reversed ruling on the burqa/niqab. Segregation has no place in our parliament; common sense has prevailed.
Burqa backdown
We had also expected to hear more today about the controversy in the last sitting concerning the security arrangements for parliament house – specifically, the controversy concerning head coverings for Muslim women visiting the people’s house.
I note that the department of parliamentary services has just issued the following backdown .. sorry .. advice:
All visitors entering Parliament House will be required to temporarily remove any coverings that prevent the recognition of facial features. This will enable DPS security staff to identify any person who may have been banned from entering Parliament House or who may be known, or discovered, to be a security risk.
Once this process has taken place, visitors are free to move about the public spaces of the building, including all chamber galleries, with facial coverings in place.
I neglected in that opening post to mention what the rest of the national affairs is doing today: MPs in the Reps are sitting. The Senate is doing its estimates thing.
A couple of early news stories of interest.
- Damnation
The Australian reports the government will release an agricultural competitiveness green paper outlining “a nation-building agenda that contemplates dam expansions, infrastructure development and greater access to ports.”
-
Stop the (damn) activists
The Australian Financial Review reports that the ability of political activists to disrupt companies will be curbed under government plans to prevent small groups from convening special company meetings. “As part of the Coalition’s assault on red tape, the rule that allows 100 shareholders to convene special company meetings will be replaced by a requirement that meetings are called by 5% of voting shareholders.”
Good morning world. Is that what John Laws used to say? Perhaps he’s still on air and still says it. Or perhaps he never said it. Coffee does take a little time to absorb.
In any case, good morning, blogans, bloganistas, and welcome.
The most significant early morning news is the foreign minister Julie Bishop has settled the relevant legal authority for special forces to enter Iraq in their “advise and assist” role. Readers of Politics Live will know that the completion of this paperwork has taken some period of time.
The Abbott government has been making it clear for weeks that special forces are ready to go, ready to go, ready to go go go, did we say ready to go. (Yes, it is that kind of morning.) But the government has also been making it plain that “ready to go” does not mean ready to go without an underpinning legal framework. That now appears done, thanks to Bishop, who has been meeting key Iraqi government people in Baghdad over the weekend.
This development of course draws Australia further into a dangerous conflict in the Middle East.
Tony Abbott for his part is in Jakarta for the swearing in of the new Indonesian president, Joko Widodo. The leadership transition to our north is of key interest to Australia – we are losing a good friend to this country in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and it’s clear Abbott wants to make a friendly gesture to his replacement.
A few interesting news stories around in the papers this morning, which I’ll deal with in the next post.
Rejoice: the Politics Live comments thread is now wide open for your business. Rejoice: if you’d prefer to engage on a large social media platform rather than let fly with constructive analysis in the comment in the thread, you can chat to me on Twitter @murpharoo and the man with the camera @mpbowers
