Good day and good night
Right, as another parliamentary day coasts towards an end we can take a breath and look at what we have learnt.
- We have our first look at the Foreign Fighter’s bill, the second “tranche” of the government’s national security reforms. Australians will face life imprisonment if they prepare to travel overseas to engage in hostile activities, search warrants will be able to be carried out without the property owner’s knowledge and people can have their passports cancelled without being notified.
- Tensions continued to build in the Palmer United Party camp with senator Jacqui Lambie unable to rule out walking away from the party after reports her dear leader, Clive, called her “not very bright”.
- A motion to have a parliamentary inquiry into the Queensland government failed. It looked set to pass and then the government amended it to include the previous Labor government, led by Anna Bligh. After the amendment Labor did not support it and it was voted down.
- Tony Abbott told the government party room the fight against Isis in Iraq would be “risky and dangerous” and he was wary of putting boots on the ground. “We have modest ambitions. We have minimal involvement,” he said.“The west cannot save the world single-handedly ... the heavy lifting on the ground will not be done by us.”
I will be with you driving the blog in the morning as Katharine Murphy is temporarily attending to another project.
A further look at the Foreign Fighters bill from my colleagues Daniel Hurst and Paul Farrell:
Australians face life imprisonment if they prepare to travel overseas to engage in hostile activities, as part of the most significant overhaul of the nation’s counter-terrorism laws in a decade.
The federal government released its second national security bill on Tuesday evening, arguing the changes were needed to respond to the threat posed by citizens travelling to Iraq and Syria to join Islamic State (Isis) fighters.
The bill seeks to repeal the current regime of laws used to prosecute people in favour of a far more punishing act that creates four offences that carry penalties of life imprisonment.
The four offences where people face life sentences are:
- making an incursion into a foreign country with the intent of engaging in hostile activities.
- Preparing for incursions into foreign countries for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities.
- Giving or receiving goods and services to promote the commission of an offence.
- Allowing use of buildings, vessels and aircraft to commit a foreign incursions offence.
Updated
Inquiry into Queensland government defeated
There will be no parliamentary inquiry into the Queensland government, after a particularly wily and at times amusing turn of events.
The government moved to amend the motion to include the previous Labor government in the inquiry into Queensland. It originally was only going to look at the current LNP government, led by Campbell Newman.
Greens supported the motion, so it passed.
Then when it was moved the amended motion be passed nobody voted in favour of it.
The government said they were never going to vote for the motion and it looks as though Labor couldn’t stomach a Queensland inquiry that included the previous Labor government.
Back to the debate in the Senate. Greens have supported a motion to include the previous Queensland Labor government in the inquiry into the Queensland government. It was initially going to only examine the current LNP government led by Campbell Newman but the government moved to extend the inquiry to include Anna Bligh’s government.
It passed 38 to 24.
Updated
A bit belated, entirely my fault, but here is Palmer United Party senator, Dio Wang, being congratulated by colleagues at the end of his maiden speech. With thanks to Mike Bowers, as ever.
PUP senator Wang is congratulated by #theBrickWithTies after his first speech @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/qk53vrD90S
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
Updated
Government releases 'Foreign Fighters' bill
The threshold for being able to arrest people on terrorism offences will be reduced to “reasonable grounds”, police will be able to search homes without the owners knowing and custom officers will have increased powers to detain people at airports, under the second “tranche” of national security reforms.
The government has released its second national security reform bill, the Foreign Fighters bill, which was sent out to media at 5pm.
I have an expansion on the dot points I offered before. The bill will:
- introduce a new set of circumstances in which a person can be detained by a Customs officer.
- introduce a delayed notification search warrant scheme—”with appropriate safeguards and limits”—to allow a search warrant to be executed without the knowledge of the occupier of the premises to ensure suspects are not immediately alerted to the investigation.
- reduce the arrest threshold for terrorism offences (including foreign incursions offences) to ‘suspects’ on reasonable grounds
- cut welfare payments for people who have been assessed as a serious threat to Australia’s national security where the person’s visa or passport has been cancelled
- improve the ability of Asio to request the cancellation of a visa based on security concerns and introduce a power to suspend Australian passports and seize foreign passports for 14 days
- remove the requirement to immediately notify an individual of the cancellation of a passport to avoid alerting the individual to the existence of an investigation
- create a new offence for destroying or tampering with a record or thing to prevent its production under a questioning warrant
The Senate just voted “that the question be put” to the government’s amendment to the motion to have an inquiry into the Queensland government.
The government attempted to amend the motion so it started from the election of the previous Labor government, led by Anna Bligh. instead of the election of the current LNP Queensland government, led by Campbell Newman.
My colleague, Daniel Hurst, tells me it was supported by Labor, Greens, three PUP senators and Motoring Enthusiast Party senator Ricky Muir. So debate on the motion will continue.
The government has released the Foreign Fighters bill, the second in its “tranche” of national security reforms. It was sent out to media at 5.03pm and will be introduced to parliament tomorrow.
The bill is currently undergoing a thorough examination by my esteemed colleagues and before I dive into it myself I will pass along the key points from the attorney-general’s media release on it.
The bill will:
- create new offences for ‘advocating terrorism’ and for entering or remaining in a ‘declared zone’;
- broaden the criteria and streamline the process for the listing of terrorist organisations;
- extend instances in which a control order may be sought; extend the sunsetting provisions of the preventative detention order and control order regimes; and include a sunset clause for the ‘declared zone’ offence;
- provide certain law enforcement agencies with additional tools needed to investigate, arrest and prosecute those supporting foreign conflicts;
- limit the means of travel for foreign fighting or support for foreign fighters; and
- strengthen protections at Australia’s borders.
Some language there certainly leaning towards Orwellian, we will bring you a plain English version shortly.
Updated
Dio Wang represents Western Australia and has said it needs a larger share of GST, much like every other WA politician.
“Make no mistake it is in our spirit that we must help others, we want to help other states and territories...we could contribute more if there was enough funding to facilitate further economic growth in Western Australia.
Wang says there is a lot of potential for growth in tourism and mining, two of the industries he lists which could generate even more money for WA.
He has another person to acknowledge, aside from his loving wife.
I’d like to sincerely thank Clive Palmer for setting up Palmer United Party so everyone can have a fair go.
Updated
The debate has finished abruptly for Palmer United Party senator, Dio Wang, to deliver his maiden speech.
He starts off talking ,very touchingly, about his parents:
Being a single child, I was no doubt spoilt...my parents were my ship, my wings, my ocean..I will always be frustrated because there is no word in the world to describe my love of them.
More from Liberal senator Brett Mason:
If we’re frank about this, the only sentiment binding this entire motion together is nothing to do with qld govt admin or operation of courts of human rights, not even to do with fiscal accountability. They are just fig leaves for an attack on the Queensland government.
On the proposed inquiry finishing on March 31 - widely expected to be just about the date of the Queensland election.
The entire Queensland government will be under the Senate microscope all through the rest of this year and the entire election campaign next year. It’s so cynical.
Mason is also critical of the proposed committee examining the Queensland, which consists of five senators, one of which to be elected by the government.
The disgrace of this is not the Palmer United Party doing it, because I expected that...I thought the Australian Labor party would be far too responsible to enter into this arrangement. That’s why I’m really disappointed. The alternative government!
He finishes:
It’s an absolute disgrace and God help the Labor party in the future.
Liberal Senator Brett Mason is getting particularly impassioned in the Senate. His line, devastating when you’re a teen busted smoking by your mother, is “I’m not angry, just disappointed”. It’s directed at the Labor party for playing along with PUP in getting up this particular inquiry.
QLD senator Brett Mason fires up "think about the precedent this sets" @murpharoo #politicslive @GuardianAus pic.twitter.com/s85hGFV7AN
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
The government is moving a motion to have the proposed inquiry into the Queensland government start from the election of the previous Labor government, led by Anna Bligh.
Eric Abetz:
In the event the Palmer United Party is interested in the use of funds by Queensland government, why aren’t they interested in the Labor government? Why are they only interested in the Newman LNP government?
The success of such an amendment does not guarantee government support of the motion though.
Whether or not Palmer United would be interested in such an amendment, we as a Coalition will remain absolutely true to our principles by still voting against the motion. Make no mistake about that.
Abetz “pleas” with the opposition “not to subvert longstanding principles of the Senate to help Palmer pursue a personal vendetta”.
Labor is not supporting the amendment to have the inquiry start from the date of Bligh’s election win in 2009.
An interesting observation from Paula Matthewson over on Twitter on Palmer United Party’s motion to have Lazarus chair the committee.
@murpharoo If they get this motion up, Lazarus will get a pay rise as chair of the cttee - the one he didn't get as leader of a non-party
— Paula Matthewson (@Drag0nista) September 23, 2014
Leader of the government in the house, Eric Abetz, is arguing there should be a debate on whether to launch an inquiry into Queensland government. He doesn’t want the inquiry and believes it should be debated.
This is purely designed to spoil the chances the re-election of the LNP government in Queensland...a government that is doing a fantastic job in cleaning up a Labor legacy and a Labor mess.
Updated
Hello. Bridie Jabour here for the late afternoon shift.
We turn first to the Senate where PUP senator Glenn Lazarus has moved a motion to suspend standing orders to continue debating whether there should be an inquiry into the Queensland government.
The ayes have it, 34 to 29.
He is now trying to pass the motion to launch the inquiry without a debate.
Keep up!
A division has brought the viciousness to an end.
Sadly I must leave this most fascinating turn of events for now. We are executing a shift change on Politics Live this afternoon to enable me to deal with a project I must manage over the next little bit.
Your steward and river guide into the evening is the delightful Ms Bridie Jabour. Please make her very welcome.
LNP senator Barry O’Sullivan. On the subject of that inquiry into Queensland.
The deal was done, in the dining room.
God – like Cluedo in the senate right now.
Liberal senator James McGrath, Newman’s former campaign director, now federal senator, is less about candlesticks in the library. He’s about cutting to the chase.
This is a witchunt against Campbell Newman, he says. And Labor’s support for the inquiry is about PUP preferences at the next election, he says.
Labor is not amused.
While the boilover happens upstairs, in chambre rouge, a bit more Bowers magic.
#powerpumps Madam speaker had her booting shoes on today-evictions passed 200 @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/LAQ4Fjz37v
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
Mr Bowers thought the Speaker reaching a milestone of 200 evictions from the House required a memorial portrait. Check out the power pumps.
Check. Out.
There is one almighty blow up underway in the senate right now.
It is possible that the attorney-general, George Brandis, may blow a gasket. The PUP senators are attempting to move to establish an inquiry into .. well, Queensland. This frolic relates to the poisonous relations between Clive Palmer and the Queensland premier Campbell Newman. Everyone is off the long run down there now. Jacqui Lambie is interjecting at fog horn volume. Queensland Liberal senator Ian Macdonald has never seen anything so outrageous as this inquiry.
This is a farce of the highest degree. This is an outrageous abuse of the parliamentary process.
Updated
Polls – Iraq, it's mighty interesting
To the Essential poll, out this afternoon. We referenced the Newspoll this morning, which had Labor still in front on the two party preferred measure, but also contained statistically significant improvements for Tony Abbott in terms of his approval ratings, and ranking as preferred prime minister.
Essential has the two party preferred result at 53% Labor, 47% Coalition. That’s unchanged on last week. It’s more positive for Labor than the Newspoll.
There’s a number of interesting questions too – but most interesting to me is Australians surveyed by Essential just aren’t buying the argument that engagement in Iraq has no national security consequences at home. Asio has been trying to advance this proposition. The government says Iraq doesn’t change the equation because Australia is already a terror target.
Voters beg to differ.
Only 15% think that sending military forces to Iraq will make Australia more safe from the threat of terrorism and 51% think it will make Australia less safe. Those most likely to think it will make Australia less safe from the threat of terrorism were Greens voters (73%), other party voters (58%) and women (57%).
On engagement in Iraq more generally, the findings are as follows.
52% approve of the Australian government’s decision to send 600 military personnel plus aircraft to Iraq for military action against the Islamic State and 34% disapprove. A large majority (74%) of Liberal/National voters approve while Labor voters are split 43% approve/42% disapprove. Men split 60% approve/29% disapprove compared to women 44% approve/39% disapprove.
Just a housekeeping issue. We’ve had some problems with our picture transmission system today which is why I’ve used tweets from Mr Bowers rather than pictures. That’s our workaround of choice when technology wavers – apologies if the images don’t look quite as pretty. Our view is better you have them than miss them.
Now, Bridie Jabour is back from Senate question time. She’s sent me a short update on events in the red place. Here ‘tis:
Over at question time in the Senate there was next to no references to Iraq, Islamic State or national security. Instead the opposition was asking questions about the budget and the government was giving itself dorothy dixers on boats.
Minister of Indigenous affairs, Nigel Scullion, was asked to guarantee funding for the Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service. The government is changing the way Indigenous organisations are funded so they have to tender for the money. Scullion would not guarantee the funding for that particular service. “What I can guarantee is the same amount of funds that were available will still be available and it will be in a competitive environment,” he said.
Scullion was also asked by Senator Nova Peris if the Indigenous Affairs public servants “were in disarray”. (You may recall they were rolled into the prime minister’s department because of his particular interest in the area. There have been reports the intergration has been less than successful.) “This is what it’s come to, an anonymous source deep within the public service has asserted his or her department is in disarray...Not only is morale at all time high but they are dielighted, absolutely delighted [with the government],” Scullion responded.
Assistant minister for social services, Mitch Fifield, was asked if a cashless welfare card is going to be introduced. “The government is considering future directions for the welfare system....it’s expected to be finalised in coming months. The govt will look at options to streamline the program and emerging technologies, including cashless cards,” he said,
So that’s a maybe.
After question time Labor’s Mark Dreyfus asks Madam Speaker is she aware she has ejected 200 people from the House during her tenure, 98% Labor MPs. Madam Speaker is aware of that stat, yes. Madam Speaker notes Dreyfus is a serial offender.
(It’s funny when hard wired lawyerly senses of injustice collide with the structural injustices of partisan politics. Dreyfus QC sees travesty. Bishop MP sees victory.)
Communications minister Malcolm Turnbull rounds out question time with a Dorothy Dixer about why it’s important to to prepare and reposition government businesses subject to the forces of disruption.
Turnbull speaks about Australia Post, and suggests the efficiency review is good for the ABC.
Then this.
All of this is a reminder of the fundamental point that whatever you may think about the Labor party, you might like their policies, but the one thing they cannot do is manage.
They cannot manage anything.
(You might like their policies? Er. Tony Abbott ends question time.)
I tried to spare you that random Barnabyism but I shouldn’t, on reflection.
So while you were lighting candles in front of wind chimes and we were reading your obituary on the credit card, we were doing the business and building the economy.
#BandtBo
#BandtBo #QT @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politislive pic.twitter.com/CqXBPN2pez
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
#peakBowers
The environment minister Greg Hunt thanks Victorian Liberal backbencher Sarah Henderson for being a great friend of the Barwon foreshore. Hard not to be a great friend of the Barwon foreshore, really.
Education minister Christopher Pyne is continuing a long term sideline as amateur anthropologist of the Australian Labor Party. He thinks Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen wouldn’t mind a bit of deregulation. But ..
.. can’t control Kim Carr and the left in his own party.
Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is speaking, meanwhile, about jobs in the mushroom industry and lighting candles in front of wind chimes. Best not ask, really.
Tony Abbott, confused about all the fuss about university fee deregulation.
Madam Speaker, it’s right and proper that universities should set their fees.
It’s right and proper that universities should set their fees.
If I close my eyes, I can’t see that Jacqui Lambie.
#PalmFitz a very bipartisan #QT for Clive....and he's gone @murpharoo @Guardianaus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/uvBKqpn0jO
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
See Joel.
Updated
Tony Abbott reinforces the intrinsic wisdom associated with Operation Uni Freedom by borrowing some sage words from Labor’s Andrew Leigh.
Abbott, quoting:
Australian universities should be free to set student fees according to the market value of their degrees. Universities will have a strong incentive to compete on price and quality.
It’s a terrific statement, this. Really good. It goes on – much needed additional funding will be available to universities that capitalise on their strengths and develop compelling education.
Gee, this is good. This makes such great sense.
It was in fact none other than Labor’s own assistant treasurer. Our friend the assistant treasurer.
I tell you, where have you got him today? I see he has been hidden today.
He is in rehab at the moment.
[Er.]
Mike Bowers is having too much fun in the chamber today. I’d better evacuate him shortly and make him miserable.
#palmmorr scissors beats paper #QT @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/BgfjhDpKZG
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
Scisssors. Paper. Rock. Stop it, Bowers. This is serious. We are living in troubling times.
The prime minister is, meanwhile, noting how wonderful it will be when universities are liberated so they can charge their students $100,000 for a degree. A colleague in my office may have noted, sotto voce, that this constituted Operation Uni Freedom. Or I might have just made that up. You decide.
#operationunifreedom
#scissorspaperrock
#troublingtimes
A couple of questions where Labor is alleging families minister Kevin Andrews has made things up about the New Zealand welfare system to justify cuts here. Andrews, more animated than usual, advises Labor to learn from John Key how you might win elections. A right biatch. Most uncharacteristic.
The treasurer Joe Hockey meanwhile notes that Australian consumers are starting to pick up.
They are starting to get more confidence about the way the economy is heading.
(Bit odd. The last consumer confidence measure I saw was a shocker. Possibly I’m out of date. If that’s the case, do ignore me. Muttering away.)
A Dorothy Dixer then allowing the immigration minister to apologise in advance to Muslims for delays they might experience at airports as they travel for the hajj. Scott Morrison says customs staff will be using the more intense security protocols but will act with cultural sensitivity.
Morrison:
The government regrets any inconvenience or potential embarrassment by the officers having to go about the sensitive task they have to do. We know that they are doing this job – we are tasking them to do this job to protect Australia and all Australians.
They deserve our respect and courtesy for the job they are doing and they will act with the same courtesy and respect to all these come in contact with as they undertake their responsibilities.
Let he who is without sin cast the first trough.
PUP Leader Clive Palmer asks a question during #QT @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/Pw3j1L4KAE
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
Now we have Clive Palmer on the debt emergency. Why are you people banging on about debt when Robert Menzies had a huge debt and he didn’t bang on about it.
The question is to the treasurer, Joe Hockey.
Menzies was a great prime minister because he reduced the debt levels, just as this prime minister wants to reduce the debt levels and just as the Howard government reduced the debt levels because that’s what Liberals do. We pay off the debt.
Hockey shoots a smirk at Palmer.
As the member for Fairfax knows, you never want to end up in an economic trough. You don’t want to end up in a trough.
Because when you end up in a trough you get yourself into trouble and of course, if you keep spending money that you do not have, if you spend money that you do not have or other people’s money, which is even worse, you can end up in the trough.
Palmer half smirks back.
Yes, it was a fat joke.
Thus far we have terror versus Medicare.
This will make Mike Bowers’ day.
Lovely #palmpyne action #QT @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/Bn9O0e1ttg
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
We do love #palmpyne on Politics Live.
Meanwhile.
Q: Will the prime minister now abandon his GP tax?
Abbott:
This government supports a modest co-payment for Medicare, as members opposite did in the days when they were better led than they are now.
I spent many years in this parliament as the best friend that Medicare has ever had – and I’ve got to say I want Medicare to be sustainable – and the best way to keep and preserve and strengthen our Medicare system over the medium and longer term is with a modest co-payment.
Question time
It being 2pm.
Question time has opened with Labor requesting the government dump the GP tax.
Tony Abbott has opened with his imminent visit to New York for the special security session at the UN.
More than 20 Australians are estimated to have already returned from fighting with groups such as ISIL. Madam Speaker, more than 60 Australians have had their passports cancelled on security advice to prevent them travelling to the Middle East to join terrorist groups such as ISIL.
Now, Madam Speaker, I want to make it absolutely crystal clear again that fighting with a terrorist group is a serious crime under Australian law. So the point I make to people is that if you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time.
Foreign fighters and radicalisation is a global problem, Abbott notes. It requires a global solution.
One more item from the partyroom – a certain level of outrage was shared concerning that well known bastion of leftism, Q&A. Q&A on Monday night devoted much conversational energy to terror.
One MP contended just as government had a responsibility to national security so does the media. He revealed how appalled he was that a conspiracy theory was allowed to be floated on Q&A concerning last week’s counter terrorism raids. The raids were theatre, and the timing had been beneficial to the government. And ..
There was no moderate Islamic voice on the panel.
Justice minister Michael Keenan had been a sea of calm [in a storm of leftist groupthink.]
[Affirmation ensued.]
Additionally, while on the subject of affirmation, someone noted Joe Hockey had been a rock star at the G20 in Cairns.
Abbott on Iraq: there are risks and dangers, and no perfect outcomes
Daniel Hurst is back now with a more comprehensive debrief. The prime minister told colleagues the Coalition approached national security issues with clear values and a clear sense of our national interest.
People are rightly anxious about the situation at home and abroad.
Abbott acknowledged the threat had been building for some time. He also acknowledged the first Australians departed for the conflict in Syria two years ago. (Asio has been warning of the risks assocated with these sectarian conflicts for some time. I’ve noted quite often over the past few months that in some respects, the government has been slow to act on advice.) The prime minister said even though national security was important, MPs should not be distracted from domestic issues.
He said in today’s meeting that any MPs with concerns about what is expected to be an imminent deployment of Australian forces and assets in Iraq should take the opportunity to raise them now. That was the point at which the one MP raised a question about whether the public would come for the ride again.
Abbott noted the witches brew of complexity. He pointed to 2003, the 2010 Lybian conflagration, and Syria, where there had been no effective intervention.
It doesn’t matter what you do, there are risks and dangers, and no perfect outcomes.
He said Australia had two goals:
One is to ensure that these places are not bases from which people can attack us. The second goal is to stop avoidable genocide. We have modest ambitions. We have minimal involvement.
(That first rationale sounds somewhat familiar doesn’t it. Saddam. Afghanistan.)
Abbott:
The west cannot save the world singlehandedly ... The heavy lifting on the ground will not be done by us.
He also noted America had been rightly, slow to reach for the gun. President Obama had told him during his visit to Washington he had no appetite to rush in quickly. Abbott said Australia aimed to assist Iraq and the Kurds, not fight their battles for them.
We’re not there to build a liberal democracy or to create a shining city on a hill.
@TonyAbbottMHR "There are risks and dangers and no perfect solutions, no matter what you do." #auspol
— Laura Jayes (@ljayes) September 23, 2014
While this debate is in progress, there is a briefing about the Coalition partyroom, which was held this morning. My colleague Daniel Hurst is there.
At Coalition party rm one questioned willingness of public to accept long-term commit to Iraq. PM: "There is no easy way forward" @murpharoo
— Daniel Hurst (@danielhurstbne) September 23, 2014
One MP is evidently not quite sure the public will come for another ride in Iraq. No good options, suggests the prime minister in response.
Fawcett is well versed in the policy detail surrounding national security. He tells the Senate public interest and transparency has to be balanced with the effectiveness of intelligence operations and with the safety of Asio agents. He says the special intelligence operations – the newly designated operations in this bill that cannot be disclosed by the intelligence community or by anyone else – are necessary.
Fawcett:
What is one person’s whistleblowing motive ... not only makes an operation ineffective, it puts lives at risk.
If there are issues to disclose, disclose them to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Fawcett says.
Updated
Liberal senator David Fawcett (a member of parliament’s joint committee on intelligence and security) is telling the chamber he’s appalled some people inside politics and outside it are alleging the government is, with this national security push, trying to distract voters from the budget. Fawcett says this policy agenda has been in contemplation for more than twelve months.
It’s an outrageous claim.
Ludlam notes again the Senate is now debating a bill that representatives, on their feet contributing, have not yet actually read.
That is treating us with contempt.
He says the office of the attorney-general, George Brandis, said the amendments would be available half an hour ago. They have not yet been sighted.
Green senator, Scott Ludlam, speaking in opposition to the bill.
The Australian Greens will not be writing blank cheques to the surveillance state, because it does not make us safer.
We are simply not learning from history.
Labor Senator Jacinta Collins has just indicated that Labor hasn’t seen the finished amendments. She says they’ll be available this afternoon. Hopefully.
In the event you want to read the text of this bill for yourself, you can find the particulars here. According to the website, amendments to this bill, currently being referenced in debate, have not yet been circulated.
Perhaps this is a better segue than Blaze?
Full metal jacket-Parliament house forecourt @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politcslive pic.twitter.com/YfaZPsnSGT
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
Blaze gives me a lovely segue to the Senate – which has begun debate on the first tranche of the national security package.
Mike Bowers has been prowling about outside documenting the day.
AFP sniffer dog Blaze on patrol in Parliament car park @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive pic.twitter.com/8m5waK6HTJ
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) September 23, 2014
I really dislike dogs, but perversely, I love this dog. His name is Blaze.
We should also cover the leader’s report. Bill Shorten told the troops we were cursed to live in interesting times. No, he didn’t. He said we were living in challenging times.
On Iraq he said Labor had taken a strong and principled position.
We’ve put the security of our nation beyond politics.
Shorten stressed the need to preserve social harmony.
We won’t overcome intolerance by being intolerant ... if Australia turns on itself, if we turn on each other, terror wins.
There was a segue then, to cost of living. (Yep, there was.)
Australians want government to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. People expect the government to keep them safe; they also expect government to help make ends meet.
Australians are relying on Labor to stand with them against the threat of terror; to stand up for their jobs; their kids’ future. We won’t let them down.
Back to the Labor caucus. As Daniel told us a moment ago, the first terror bill has been rubber stamped by the ALP.
A couple of queries though – someone was concerned about preventative detention orders. This inquiry was brushed off for consideration in the second bill. The foreign fighters bill deals with this question, not tranche one.
One brave soul also stood up for press freedom. Well, a little bit. A caucus member thought there might be a sunset clause imposed on laws that could send journalists and whistleblowers to jail for reporting national security operations.
Nup. Not interested.
The shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus was the chap who wasn’t interested. Dreyfus would be the same chap who only a few weeks ago (July actually, let’s be precise) said the government would need to amend this legislation if there was a risk of criminalising publication. Same fellow. A few weeks is a long time in politics.
Airstrikes are underway in Syria
While that’s all underway, the New York Times reports the US has begun airstrikes against Sunni militants in Syria.
Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time.
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) September 23, 2014
Labor backs in the Coalition on tranche one of the national security legislation
Live blogues. It takes a village. My colleague Daniel Hurst is down in the Labor caucus briefing.
Labor caucus confirms support for national sec bill 1 with gov amendments in line with committee report. This guarantees passage. @murpharoo
— Daniel Hurst (@danielhurstbne) September 23, 2014
The UK Telegraph has published some interesting remarks from Tony Abbott reported from last week’s sortie to North Arnhem Land.
Nothing substantive news wise – just interesting tone. Recognition of Indigenous Australians in the constitution was, Abbott told reporter Jonathan Pearlman, an appropriate way of saying to Aboriginal people, you should be and are first class citizens of your own country.
Indigenous people’s concerns every so often should be front and centre in the minds of our national leaders because they are, after all, the first Australians. They were, to our discredit, ignored and at times mistreated for much of the first couple of centuries of our national existence. The reality is that long before the First Fleet arrived, Aboriginal people were here. It was a very different society to enlightened Britain. Nevertheless, it had its own strengths, it had its own patterns, it had its own relationship with the environment. It was worthy of respect and recognition... Aboriginal people are not a problem to be solved. Aboriginal people are a reality, indeed an asset to be cherished, to be made the most of. This will be an important part of making that happen.
Now apologies. In an earlier post I indicated that Labor would consider the foreign fighters bill in caucus today.
This was a brain snap, sorry. Labor will consider the first tranche bill – the one I’ve referenced in the post about Scott Ludlam’s disquiet. It won’t do foreign fighters, because that legislation has not yet been made available by the government. The Coalition will consider the foreign fighters bill.
Given this is confusing, let me try and be clear:
- We expect some debate in the Senate today on the first tranche bill – the bill expanding Asio’s surveillance powers and criminalising intelligence leaks.
- We also expect the Coalition to formally endorse the second tranche bill, the foreign fighters bill. That bill needs to go to an inquiry before it will be listed for parliamentary debate.
Will Jacqui Lambie rule out splitting with PUP? Well, no
It has been a morning of emails. My colleague Bridie Jabour (fresh from being called not very bright by Clive Palmer) has been, naturally, bright as a button – chasing down the trouble brewing in camp PUP.
She’s asked Jacqui Lambie’s spokesman, Rob Messenger – a chap we have already referenced in dispatches this morning – whether, given the current tensions, Senator Lambie can rule out leaving the party?
Messenger has given a somewhat equivocal answer.
My intention is to work with the Palmer United party.
(Presumably he means his boss, not his intention. But in this ego fuelled circus, who would know? Bridie will file a news story shortly, I’ll link you to that when it is published.)
Updated
Green Scott Ludlam isn’t happy about parliament proceeding to a debate on the first tranche of the terror laws this afternoon. This tranche is about widening Asio’s power to surveil computers and networks; criminalising intelligence leaks and the publication of those leaks; and allowing Asio agents to use force during operations. (Not torture though. The government ruled out torture yesterday.)
We will debate a version of the bill that nobody, outside the government offices, has seen. The government, on the basis of a committee report that was tabled last week that cross benchers were excluded from, has apparently drafted a heap of amendments.
Nobody has seen them. We will be expected to basically take it or leave it. It is a shocking way to treat the legislature. It would be a terrible way to treat the Australian parliament on a trivial bill. But on a bill as significant as this which proposes to potentially criminalise journalism, national security journalism in particular, and there has never been a time when that has been more important and threatens to substantial increase and widen Asio’s surveillance powers, to be throwing a handful of amendments at people at the last minute as debate is taking place is treating the parliament with pure contempt.
This bill (unlike foreign fighters) has been in the public domain for some time. What Ludlam means is the bill will be amended to take account of recommendations from the joint parliamentary committee on intelligence and security. He’s complaining that he hasn’t seen a final version. Ludlam is right – this is an important bill, with significant practical consequences. Interesting that only the Greens and cross bench senator David Leyonhjelm are standing up in this debate for the principle of press freedom. No-one else in politics gives a toss about it. An interesting commonality on this subject between progressive libertarians and conservative libertarians.
Interesting story from my colleague, Paul Farrell. We can’t tell you what happened. We can’t even tell you who made the ruling that we can’t tell you what happened. But presumably, despite feeling vaguely like we’ve been co-opted into a Monty Python sketch, it’s all fine.
A sweeping suppression order will prevent reporting of controversial preventative detention orders used in last week’s counter-terrorism operations, indefinitely. A non-publication order preventing disclosure of any information about the use of the lock-up powers means details of the order will remain secret until a New South Wales supreme court judge rules otherwise. The judge’s ruling is so broad that a supreme court spokesman says even his name cannot be reported.
Yes, I know this is deeply serious. That’s why it’s unsettling.
It being Tuesday, the Labor caucus and the Coalition partyroom are meeting to consider the business of the week. Both forums will consider, amongst other things, the new foreign fighters package that the Coalition has been foreshadowing for some time. We expect more detail on this bill to be made available publicly later this afternoon.
Because the world needs more clicktivism and more billboards.
Clive's new billboard, funded by GetUp supporters #auspol pic.twitter.com/QcRJMBdPWx
— Bridie Jabour (@bkjabour) September 23, 2014
By 2020, no billboard shall live in poverty.
PUP leader Clive Palmer is addressing reporters now on the issues of the day.
Q: Did you say Senator Jacqui Lambie wasn’t bright?
No.
Q: Did you say Dio Wang wasn’t bright?
No – I don’t think you’re bright.
Q: Senator Lambie said she might outsmart you, does that worry you?
She said she will never leave the party. She will be voting today in the Senate with all of our senators.
I know you’d love to have a story like that so you get a headline. We can’t create the news, we should just report it.
PUPs, they fight, they chase sticks
There appears to be a spat brewing in the PUP kennel.
Fairfax journalist Latika Bourke attempted this morning to follow up a story she’d heard this morning around the traps. The story, according to Latika, was, as follows:
Clive has been overhead telling Dio Wang at the Trough (the parliamentary cafe) this morning that Jacqui is not very bright and would never make it on her own (were she to leave PUP).
He also talked about having to clean up her comments on Muslims - potentially on Lateline tonight. (I have two reputable sources who heard this conversation).
Bourke put this question to Jacqui Lambie’s staffer, Rob Messenger.
Messenger responded to Bourke with the following riposte.
Hi Latika, I’ve spoken to Jacqui about your allegation and claim and she’s authorised the following: Clive couldn’t have said that about me - because I was standing at the “trough” as well - and he said the same thing to me about Dio. Cheers Rob Ps Jacqui wants to know - were your sources also standing at the “trough” as well - or were they together in a cubical? PS: that comment and question is also in the record.
It’s unusual in the daily terms of engagement between journalists and sources for private correspondence to be published and distributed to all and sundry. But it’s a combat business, so let’s not get caught up on the niceities.
The bottom line of me bothering to recount this transaction is this: there are tensions within the PUP between Jacqui Lambie and her fellow travellers. This has been known for some time. Lambie’s office has used this request from Bourke to kick things along. This will kick those tensions along.
Interesting contribution in the Politics Live thread this morning from reader mickeycogan on the theme of binary presentation.
You said it, this is very frustrating, but it’s not the fault of the presentation, it’s the fault of the people who respond to this form of argument. It’s the old adage: we get the politics we deserve. As dispiriting as it is that our political leaders operate in these binary terms, it’s simply soul destroying to be reminded that they do it because it works on the electorate. That strategy, relentlessly applied and adhered to, got Abbott elected and it will keep him in power. Howard succeeded by appealing to the most base instincts of the Australian voter presented in the most simplistic terms and his acolyte, now in power, isn’t going to break from a winning formula.
I wrote a Dispatch recently about insecurity and the currency of insecurity in politics – which made a similar point about politics bouncing off the mood of the voters, and reflecting back the mood of the voters. I made this reflection.
It’s only a theory. In fact, this is pure speculation on my part. But perhaps it’s this abundance of reflective surfaces that exacerbates the disconcerting feeling that nothing in national affairs is ever quite real – and nothing ever quite penetrates.
I’m not a great believer in the notion that politics can manufacture insecurity and fear out of nothing, quite frankly politics lacks the intrinsic control to be able to do that – but I think politics can certainly exploit predispositions already existing in the electorate.
I’m not quite as pessimistic about the general environment as this reader, but I comprehend the broad point.
Whether or not you agree with Wilson’s world view or not – it is an interesting feature of the debate right at the moment that ministers are making it very plain that the looming legislative changes are being driven very much by the needs and desires of the agencies.
Obviously that’s not some sort of conspiracy. Agencies need powers and resources to keep Australians safe and governments need to respond to the advice they get from the experts. But politicians also need to stand up for their own power and discretion as legislators to make decisions about proportionality, and about the appropriateness of the requests they get from the security services.
Everyone plays a role here. Security services make requests. Governments consider the reasonableness or otherwise of the requests. Journalists ask questions about whether or not the process is serving the public interest.
Interesting contribution to the security debate from Tim Wilson – appointed by the Abbott government to be the “freedom” commissioner.
My colleague Daniel Hurst has interviewed Wilson. He thinks national security frameworks should be driven and set by elected politicians rather than unelected security officials.
Australia’s human rights commissioner has warned that governments must be wary of trading away liberties for security and any such measures should be temporary.
Wilson, who was appointed by the Abbott government to the Human Rights Commission to champion freedom, said changes to the nation’s counter-terrorism laws must be supported by evidence “that they are necessary to protect people and not just to be an ambit claim by government or police or security agencies for more powers”.
Just because I’m increasingly frustrated about complex issues being presented to voters and readers constantly in stark binary terms – winners and losers, believers and secptics, Team Australia and .. well, whomever is not Team Australia – let’s pause for a moment and think about Melissa Parke, boundary rider.
This intervention overnight will no doubt be presented as Parke standing up Shorten. Which of course she is. But what these simple “split” or “division” stories sometimes fail to comprehend is political parties sometimes manage their internal dissent by allowing people to express ‘off talking point’ views on issues of conscience, or to speak to various constituencies. It’s like a play within a play.
I’m not saying this happened in this particular instance. I’ve made no inquiries, so I don’t know if it did or not. I’m just making a broader point about how politics works in the real world, behind reductionist frames and screaming headlines. Cory Bernardi does this within Coalition ranks: narrowcasting. There should be more of it, in my view. With a little bit of tolerance, and a little bit of patience, you can actually have dissent without disorder.
Who knows, a bit of authenticity might even convince the voters that there are people in public life who actually stand for something.
Oh, sorry, three things, actually. Parke wonders why, given Australia has a seat on the UN Security Council, that we haven’t used it to broaden the coalition of like-minded actors for action in the Middle East.
Parke:
One has to ask why on earth the UN was not our first port of call, especially at a time when we occupy a valuable seat on the UN Security Council, where we can examine with other countries who are more familiar with the situation in the region than we are the potential for political and diplomatic solutions.
That means considering the use of smart rather than hard power.
It has been a matter of great surprise and disappointment to me that the government has not engaged with the UN before committing special forces and equipment to the so-called coalition of the concerned.
In my view we should be endeavouring to ensure that there is a broadbased international partnership engaging moderate Islamic states such as Indonesia and Malaysia as well as neighbouring Middle Eastern states such as Jordan and Turkey, under the auspices of the UN, to address the very real humanitarian and human security issues that are at the heart of the current problem.
It’s worth noting a contribution last night from the Labor MP Melissa Parke. Parke said two things – she’d had a death threat since speaking out against military engagement in Iraq; and she was still opposed to a military escalation in Iraq.
There’s a direct slap at Tony Abbott’s language – she says you can’t frame this issue as a crusade against a death cult and anticipate that any good will come of it. Of course the Labor leader Bill Shorten is offering the Coalition bipartisanship on this issue, provided certain conditions are met.
Here’s an excerpt.
Last week on Twitter a person called for my execution for treason because I had questioned the government’s rapid escalation of our new involvement in Iraq from a purely humanitarian mission to one where we appear to be joining the US in an open-ended fight against IS.
A call for my execution may be extreme, but it demonstrates how the beating of the drums of war and the hysteria this generates inevitably prevent the kind of calm, serious and rational discussion that is called for when decisions are being made to commit Australians overseas to kill and potentially to be killed.
Given the disastrous consequences of previous military interventions, as well as the continually evolving and incredibly complex situation in the Middle East, it has perhaps never been more important to curb that natural instinct for retaliation and the use of hard power and consider the root causes.
In this it may be helpful to reflect on what an elderly woman in Northern Ireland said to one of the former heads of our national counterterrorism organisation before the peace talks: ‘If you’ve got nothing to live for, you’ve got everything to die for.’
The challenges in Iraq—some caused and others exacerbated by the ill-judged coalition of the willing in 2003—arise from deep ethnic communal, cultural and religious issues.
As the Ottoman Turks discovered, and as has become even clearer ever since, these issues are never going to be resolved by outsiders, especially not outsiders with guns and bombs, and not by approaching this as a crusade against a death cult.
Fundamentally, this is an issue of human security. And does anyone believe you can ensure the security of humans by bombing humans?
At the centre of any credible national security policy is human security— individual wellbeing and community harmony that allows people everywhere to go about their business without fear, without constraints on their freedoms as enshrined in law and without the constant worry that someone wants to take their possessions and enslave their children.
That, of course, is the essential meaning of the term ‘security’: without worry — sine cura, for the classicists.
Updated
Good morning Mike Bowers.
Good morning, too, to Nick Xenophon and Chris Back, senators, chewing the fat at the door this morning. How about that sunshine? Forgive my excitement but the wireless tells me its going to be 22 degrees today. 22 degrees. I won’t see it, but just knowing it’s out there is magic.
Foreign minister Julie Bishop has just been asked by Chris Uhlmann on the ABC’s AM program whether an hysterical response to propaganda helps play into the hands of the terrorists.
Bishop:
Our agencies are treating this threat as genuine and it’s quite apparent ISIL is prepared to take on anyone who doesn’t share their views.
No-one is safe in their presence.
Updated
Good morning everyone. It is a glorious spring morning in Canberra. Hot air is drifting past my window. Hot air balloons, that is. The other hot air will build as the day progresses.
Welcome to Tuesday. It remains terror week. With the US coalition (which thus far includes Washington and Australia in terms of concrete commitments) facing off militarily and rhetorically against Islamic State – Islamic State is posturing back. (Apparently. “Intelligence agencies” or “the prime minister’s office” are said to have verified the latest online outburst from IS. I have not verified it. Just to be clear.)
Anyhow. The IS jihadists – faced with the specific threat of airstrikes – have apparently urged murderous violence against “disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French” .. and Australia. And Canada. The White House has greeted this cartoonish statement with a polite no comment. A follow up question also yielded a polite no comment.
Australian ministers by contrast are using the “filthy French” fatwah as this morning’s major talking point against “the IS death cult.” Evidently ministers don’t feel that responding to IS propaganda in a serious and voluble way will only embolden the propaganda merchants. I would think that’s at least a risk, actually – but, heck, what do I know? Fretting about this probably vastly overstates Australia’s role in the whole conflagration, in any case.
Moving on. Tony Abbott has goodish news in the Newspoll this morning – and given how poorly the Coalition has been travelling post budget – goodish news will be extremely welcome. Labor is still ahead on the Newspoll two party preferred measure, but Abbott’s approval ratings have improved by 6%. He’s also back in front as preferred prime minister (that measure is up 4% to 41%). The other movements in the poll this week are within the margin of error. Even though Labor remains in front for this fortnight (and other opinion polls, thus far, have not detected much of a national security bounce, to put this in crude political terms), the personal measures are cheery news for Abbott who is due to fly out to New York later today. To the security summit at the UN. Not the climate summit at the UN. To be clear.
In more cheery news, the Politics Live comments thread is wide open for your business. Get into it. I’ve also fired up Twitter – should you want to chat to me there. I’m @murpharoo and the man peering through the lens is @mpbowers
Updated
