Night time politics summary
- Clive Palmer has backed down on his insistence on an emissions trading scheme, committing to support the Coalition’s Direct Action policy in return for the Climate Change Authority “investigating” an ETS for 18 months.
- The foreign fighters bill passed the senate today, which declares areas no-go zones, among other things. From now on, people who travel to those areas will have to provide a legitimate reason otherwise they could face jail.
- A third national security bill has been introduced to allow sharing of information between intelligence agencies and the Australian defence forces, allowing them to potentially target Australian terrorist fighters.
- The higher education bill, which deregulates university fees, is being debated in the senate.
-
The PM is delivering his science awards tonight.
Thanks to Mike Bowers, Daniel Hurst, Lenore Taylor and Shalailah Medhora for their help and therapy throughout the day.
Good night and let flights of angels etc etc.
This is the Palmer formulation of what happened this afternoon, as spun by his media people.
Palmer Saves Emissions Trading Scheme
The Palmer United Party has successfully negotiated with the Abbott Government to consider major amendments to carbon farming, retaining the Climate Change Authority and agreeing to a three-stage, 18-month enquiry into an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
The Climate Institute has raised doubts that the government’s Direct Action plan will achieve the target
We are deeply concerned that the amendments to the CFI (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill fail to establish a climate policy that gives a reasonable chance of achieving even the lowest level of Australia’s 5-25 per cent 2020 target range, let along the deeper decarbonisation of the economy that will be needed beyond 2020. The Climate Change Authority has recommended Australia adopt a 2030 emission reduction target of 40-60 per cent below 2000 levels.
Without access to international carbon permits, stronger domestic regulations will be needed to meet Australia’s emission goals. The ‘safeguard mechanisms’ in the legislation—the emission limits that companies will have to adhere to—will need to be very strong and get more stringent over time, and regulations to limit emissions and tighten energy efficiency standards across the economy will also be needed.”
Alone again, naturally.
Labor’s environment spokesman Mark Butler accuses Greg Hunt of performing “jedi mind tricks” on Palmer.
Updated
Higher education deregulation debate starts in senate
Debate over Christopher Pyne’s bill to deregulate higher education fees has begun in the senate. Labor’s Kim Carr says $100,000 degrees will become much more likely if the bill passes.
At this stage, Labor, Greens and Palmer United are opposing so there appears to be no prospect of it passing. It certainly won’t be voted on tonight.
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away
Australia’s incredible shrinking climate change horizon.
Beam me up Scotty.
Don’t you worry about that.
Christine Milne called on Labor to stay firm on the Renewable Energy Target - at 41,000 gigawatt hours - even though industry minister Ian Macfarlane has already foreshadowed a cut of 27,000 gigawatt hours after the Warburton review. The government has said it is negotiating with Labor on the RET.
And on Al Gore:
It was a pretty wild leap of faith to stand with a coal billionaire, says Milne.
Remember the big conference with Al Gore, asks Greens leader Christine Milne. All huff and puff. Milne says the Emissions Reduction Fund, known as Direct Action, was a voluntary scheme with no modelling to prove how it would reduce emissions.
Palmer backs down on ETS and delivers Direct Action to Abbott government
Clive Palmer has done a deal with the Abbott government to support the $2.5bn Direct Action fund which uses a reverse auction to pay big polluters to reduce emissions. The Climate Change Authority will be saved, as foreshadowed earlier, and the CCA will investigate a Emissions Trading Scheme, having abolished the one due to start next year.
Isn’t this a complete capitulation on the ETS?
No it’s not. Hope is still alive. Just because you don’t like the environment, don’t take it out on me mate, says Palmer.
That’s it. End of presser.
Asked if he would back down on the RET “as well”, Clive Palmer says “we have made our position clear on the RET”. That Palmer United wants to keep the 20% Renewable Energy Target.
Asked if Palmer will claim through the Direct Action grants using any of his companies, he says he is a full time politician now, not a director of Queensland Nickel.
Which does not really answer the question.
This is a great outcome for the government, says Hunt.
The ERF now has the prospect of being passed through the parliament shortly.
None of these things come without negotiation. That is the reality of the senate.
Greg Hunt is saying this is a great win for the government.
Which begs the question by Tony Abbott is not announcing the win. And it is not in the ministerial press conference “blue room” normally used for statements.
Lenore Taylor was the one who asked about how the government was going to get to the target to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020.
This is what the modelling, in Taylor’s story, finds on the government’s Direct Action policy:
The government has not modelled whether the fund has enough money to meet Australia’s minimum 2020 target to reduce emissions by 5%, with Abbott saying during the election campaign he preferred to just “have a crack”.
But Modelling by Reputex climate analytics, commissioned by the environment group WWF-Australia, found it was likely to fall short by $5.9bn a year between 2015 and 2020, or between $20bn and $35bn in total. Separate Modeling by Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA and Monash University’s Centre of Policy Studies, commissioned by the Climate Institute, which used assumptions more generous to the Coalition, found it would need at least another $4bn. Abbott has said if Direct Action falls short he will not allocate any more money.
Updated
Greg Hunt says the government will achieve the drop in emissions targets because our emissions profile is dropping.
This policy is about reducing emissions by doing practical things, he says.
Q: On what basis do you calculate you will get there?
I am very committed.
So the old Labor ETS was due to start next year. That has been abolished and now the CCA will investigate another ETS, presumably to do the same thing, over the next 18 months.
Bernie Fraser hails it as:
the beginnings of an emerging broader consensus on climate change and the need to take action.
Hunt mentioned an extension of savannah burning by indigenous communities will be extended.
Fraser says “these are encouraging developments”.
We will set about providing independent and balanced advice...not a sectional view.
That will be interesting.
Clive Palmer says as other countries introduce an ETS, Australia will be saddled effectively with a tariff.
He has every confidence in Bernie Fraser given his record in public service.
This is an issue where you don’t want to be on the wrong side of history...this is a major step forward.
CCA will carry out an 18 month inquiry into an ETS and report back to parliament after 30 June 2016.
We think we have kept alive an ETS.
The government has agreed to extend programs on carbon farming but would be not be proceeding with Palmer’s dormant Emissions Trading Scheme.
The CCA will not be abolished, as known previously.
Hunt thanks Palmer.
He’s a good person to negotiate with.
Emissions Reduction Fund has secured support from Palmer for Direct Action, as reported by Lenore Taylor.
The Sandman!
Bernie Fraser, head of the Climate Change Authority is with Clive Palmer and Greg Hunt.
Five minutes to more Palmer drama.
Clive Palmer has called a press conference for 5.20pm for a room booked by environment minister Greg Hunt.
The Women in Media event, which Julie Bishop spoke to at lunch time at the National Press Club, continues on into the evening.
Liberal backbencher Kelly O’Dwyer, who was a surprising omission from the cabinet, has just tweeted this photo with Bishop, Michaela Cash and the head of Finance, Jane Halton.
Great 2 be @ launch of group for Women in Media with @JulieBishopMP @SenatorCash &Jane Halton Great pic @ellinghausen pic.twitter.com/G2rixXBb0U
— Kelly O'Dwyer (@KellyODwyer) October 29, 2014
Brandis introduces bill to track Australian terror suspects and share with defence forces
The new bill that would give intelligence agencies the power to track Australians suspected of fighting with Isis has been introduced to the senate. It also allows the information to be shared with the Australian Defence Forces, raising the question of targeting Australian terrorists.
George Brandis’ bill will give the overseas agency - the Australian Security Intelligence Service - the power to “provide assistance to the defence force in support of military operations and to cooperate with the defence force on intelligence matters.”
Brandis said urgent changes were needed in light of the ADF operations in Iraq against Isis.
These activities are anticipated to include the collection of intelligence in relation to Australian persons who are known or suspected participants in the hostilities, and particularly those who are known or suspected of fighting with or alongside the IS terrorist organisation. Such intelligence is likely to prove instrumental to these operations, including in protecting ADF personnel, members of other defence forces, and civilians from death or serious harm as a result of terrorist or other hostile acts committed in the course of the conflict.
The bill also changes police control order application requirements.
The Clive Palmer-Greg Hunt deal on Direct Action is scheduled for after five now. This is senator John Madigan’s take.
Yes, no, maybe, on, off who knows? Is this another PUP stunt? Ho-hum. #auspol
— John Madigan (@SenJJMadigan) October 29, 2014
Updated
It was told more as an anecdote to prove “I feel your pain”.
But it comes across more in the style of “don’t you know who I am?”
It was Joe Hockey’s story to highlight the pointless red tape and bureaucracy that surround many laws in all tiers of government. A lot of people get cranky about this stuff, particularly small business.
So Hockey related the following story at an event in Canberra today to highlight business compliance costs. Here is Hockey’s version, as reported in Fairfax, of the night that caused him to “explode”.
I took my kids to a little park up the road and there’s a pizza shop there and we met up with another family … [there were] two tables outside [with] three chairs on one table, four on the other. I went to put the two tables together and the owner of the pizza shop came out and said ‘I’m sorry Mr Hockey, you’re not allowed to do that, the council regulation prevents you putting the two tables together’. There were eight of us, so I went inside to get another chair and they said, ‘Sorry Mr Hockey, they’ve said you can only have seven chairs [outside], not eight’.
I actually tracked down the mayor, it was 6 o’clock on a Friday night, and I think the whole suburb heard the conversation. I want you to know that the Treasurer of Australia feels the same pain you do … that’s what I’m trying to say.
Hello Madame Speaker.
Personal explanations are given at the end of question time by members who claim to have been misrepresented in the argy bargy of debate. Labor’s agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon got up for that very reason and again we saw the little frisson between he and the Speaker Bronwyn Bishop.
Fitzgibbon and Bishop appear to be part of a mutual admiration society, proving there is room for cross-parliamentary friendships. Though she is widely acknowledged as a tiger in the chair, Bishop always allows Fitzgibbon a little latitude. Bishop had a bit of a joke with Fitzgibbon this afternoon and in Mike Bowers’ picture (above) you can see all the members reacting to the Fitzgibbon-Bishop banter.
From Penny Wong on Nova Peris:
Senator Nova Peris has my full support. There is no public interest in the publication of private correspondence today that bears no relationship whatsoever to Senator Peris’ role as a parliamentarian. These media reports represent a gross invasion of Senator Peris’ privacy. Australians – public figures and the wider community – deserve better.
Look out. Warren Truss gets animated.
Hold the phone. Trouble in paradise. Clive Palmer has cancelled his Direct Action announcement and will reschedule.
You know those powers to track down Australian terrorist fighters in the Middle East? The bills relating to those powers will be introduced to the senate this afternoon by attorney general George Brandis.
1 – Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) – Introduction of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014
2 – Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) – Introduction of the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2014.
Stay tuned.
Bill Shorten welcomes the German delegation.
Scott Morrison gets a question every day right now.
All done with question time. Clive Palmer coming up. More importantly, more excellent Mike Bowers pics...
Apropos Lenore Taylor’s story earlier...
Labor to Abbott: Can the PM confirm that he’s done a dirty deal with Clive Palmer to give taxpayers’ money to Australia’s dirtiest biggest polluters to keep polluting?
We took a policy to the election, which was to save the Australian people from the pernicious carbon tax but to tackle climate change through a Direct Action policy that would result in more trees, better soils and smarter technology. And we continue to try to secure the passage of that legislation through the Senate, says Abbott.
Clive Palmer is announcing a presser at 3.45pm.
Labor continues to hammer the petrol excise.
Abbott’s responses are variations on a theme.
While 40 cents a week certainly is not nothing, it is rather dwarfed by the $550 a year savings which this government has given the households of Victoria through scrapping the carbon tax.
A question on the east west link in Melbourne to Jamie Briggs, infrastructure minister. This is the daily Victorian election question, designed to point out Labor in Victoria is not supporting the project.
The federal Coalition owe Victorian premier Denis Napthine after delivering a petrol tax rise in the middle of an election campaign.
Barnaby Joyce gets a question on dams.
This was the subject of the national water infrastructure round table earlier today.
Happy campers.
Warren Truss government question on encouraging investment in airports.
Labor to Truss: I refer to the Deputy PM’s previous comments about fuel excise increases on 13 August 2009 and I quote, “The extra cost of fuel always flows through to increased prices on everything we buy. The Coalition recognises this in 2000 when we put a freeze on fuel excise.’ Deputy PM, what’s changed?
Truss’s blood pressure is actually rising. He says the government has looked after the diesel fuel effects in the legislation.
The legislation that this Government will be bringing to the Parliament in relation to the fuel excise arrangements involves assurances that there will be a diesel fuel rebate paid to those entitled to it to make up for the half a cent a litre increase in excise. If the Labor Party opposes that legislation, the Labor Party. He has just indicated he will oppose it. He will deny regional Australians the excise rebate they are excited to. He will take away from regional communities our action to ensure in is no additional past cost of transport passed on to those who live outside the cities. Shame, shame, shame on Labor.
Shorten to Abbott: Does the PM agree with the executive director of the Australian Automobile Association who yesterday described his petrol tax ambush as “I think frankly it’s weak, it’s weak, sneaky and it’s tricky.’ I have to say as well I think it’s also quite a gutless less move.
Tony Abbott is exhorting a Team Australia approach.
To his credit, he has been prepared to think of our nation and not just the next election when it comes to national security and I say to the Leader of the Opposition it would be better for him as well as better for our country if on economic security as well as on national security he was prepared just for once to think about our country and not just about short-term politics.
Lindsay MP Fiona Scott asks “the wonderful minister for small business” about the red tape bonfire. Shucks, from Bruce Billson.
In the area of tax more than 440,000 small businesses will benefit from changes to entry thresholds for GST and PAYG reporting. That is $63m worth of compliance savings. In areas of the Corporations Act, the silly idea that you need to appoint and retain an auditor for certain corporations that don’t need to conduct an audit. These are sensible changes.
A question to Joe Hockey on the performance of the Australian economy.
Bowen to Abbott: Why should Australian motorists pay oil companies because of your ambush on petrol tax?
This thing that members opposite are complaining about is a measure that was introduced by Bob Hawke, a real Labor leader. Now, Madam Speaker, I accept that as a result of this measure the average family will pay some 40cents a week more. I accept that. And no-one wants to pay more, even if it’s only 40 cents a week.
It has been a recurring theme for the government, lauding Hawke and Keating over the current Labor party.
Bowser bandit part 2.
A government question to Christopher Pyne says there has been an “avalanche of support” for the government’s higher education changes.
Chris Bowen to treasurer Hockey on the petrol tax: Does the PM agree with his finance minister that, ‘If it wasn’t validated by the Parliament within 12 months the money will go back to fuel manufacturers and to fuel importers who will essentially have a windfall gain.’?
Hockey quotes Bowen on Sky News this morning: ‘We’ve had a tax review, the Henry tax review, it didn’t recommend this particular change to fuel excise.’
The Henry tax review had a fuel excise in recommendation 65.
Hockey quotes the Henry tax review: “Fuel tax should apply to all fuels used in road transport on the basis of energy content and be indexed to inflation.And be indexed to inflation! Hang on!”
The Labor Party can’t get their facts right. The Labor Party can’t be trusted with money. The Labor Party is just hopeless.
Labor to Abbott: Did the National Party support your increased petrol tax or did you ambush the National Party just like you ambushed the Australian people, particularly those living in regional and rural Australia?
The members of the coalition all understand that we were elected with a clear mandate to fix the Budget.
Which means the National Party wasn’t told.
Immigration minister Scott Morrison is talking about the Scanlon report mentioned earlier.
One of the reasons we have been so strong on our borders is because we believe in our immigration program and we want to restore confidence in that immigration program that was lost under the previous government.
Cathy McGowan to Abbott: Can you please tell the house about your vision for the regions and how will this play out in practical terms for communities and businesses that are crippled by cross-border issues in areas such as Albury-Wodonga?
Abbott gives a nod to strong regions but then goes on to talk about his plans for tax reform. Back to work, regional Australia.
Shorten to Abbott: Page 5 of the PM’s repeal day report shows that on top of his $2.2bn petrol tax ambush the PM is slugging petrol stations with their very own $5.1m petrol station tax $800 on average for every petrol station every year. Why is the PM so determined to hit Australian motorists with a petrol tax whammy?
It is not paid by petrol stations but by oil companies, says Abbott. Nothing new to see here.
Bowser Bandit.
opposition taunt the PM with headline "bowser bandit" during #QT @gabriellechan @GuardianAus http://t.co/y2N0DGZMWs pic.twitter.com/OELFPX8AuE
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) October 29, 2014
Speaker Bishop instructed the attendants to collect the unparliamentary props.
Government question to Julie Bishop: Will the minister please outline to the House what measures the Government is taking to protect our youth from extremism?
Labor to Abbott: Because poor people don’t drive cars, as the treasurer said, they won’t feel the petrol tax?
The treasurer has dealt with that matter and I have dealt with that matter. Obviously I stand by my words and the treasurer stands by the explanation and the apology he gave at the time.
Deal done on Direct Action
The Coalition’s $2.5bn “Direct Action” climate policy appears likely to pass the Senate after the environment minister, Greg Hunt, agreed to minor amendments, but doubts remain about whether it can achieve Australia’s 2020 emission reduction target and pave the way for deeper long-term cuts.
The government has agreed to independent senator Nick Xenophon’s demand it move quickly to set up a “safeguards” scheme to impose penalties on companies that increase their greenhouse emissions – but has not committed to any detail.
It has rejected Xenophon’s push to allow the government purchase international carbon permits, something the prime minister once described as sending “money … offshore into dodgy carbon farms in Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan”, even though this would have made it easier and cheaper to reach Australia’s agreed emissions reduction target.
The government also agreed to get the Climate Change Authority – which it was once committed to abolish – to investigate the Palmer United party’s idea of a dormant emissions trading scheme, which would be activated when major trading parties had equivalent policies – with the CCA to report to the parliament.
Abbott says “of course not” - no deal done with the Greens on support for the petrol tax.
Think of the country for once, says Abbott.
First government question is on national security laws.
Parliament is particularly rowdy this morning. Shorten has to withdraw the Bowser Bandit. Labor backbenchers hold up the Herald Sun front page with the Bowser Bandit headline.
Labor MPs Nick Champion and Terri Butler thrown out.
Question time begins! Sound the trumpets!
My question is to the PM, affectionately known as the “Bowser Bandit’. Has the PM done a dirty deal with the Greens?
Though my attention has been drawn by the foreign fighters’ bill, there was the bonfire of the banalities in the lower house this morning.
It is otherwise known as Red Tape Repeal Day and has been characterised as a bonfire of red tape, pesky, stoopid laws which get in the way of Australians lifting not leaning.
The omnibus bill repealing red tape took the morning in the house. Labor tried to amend to say this is the normal job of government and should not be made such a big deal. Like publicising your housework.
Here is some flavour of the debate by Labor’s Tony Burke, contrasting red tape with the recent petrol decision.
We have today, for a full day of parliamentary sittings, a grand total of $1.8 million of savings. That is what they are here boasting about in the same week they have added $5.1 million worth of compliance costs onto motorists throughout Australia. More than double additional compliance costs have been put in place in the same week of their big repeal day that delivers only $1.8 million. And you really have to ask some questions about the $1.8 million.
The role of one of the bills we have in front of us is to change punctuation. Its role is to remove hyphens, semicolons and commas and to return commas to other places. It will correct a spelling error that was made in 1995 that the Howard government had not picked up on and we did not pick up on. The member for Kooyong has found it so we need to set aside a day to be able to deal with the additional costs associated with this!
Jacqui Lambie has released a statement with two entirely unrelated subjects.
Palmer United Senator for Tasmania Jacqui Lambie between now and 2pm will deliver a speech which details the contents of a letter she has sent today to ASIO in response to media articles citing a “confidential ASIO” document as their source.
(I think that is the Asio burqa advice story by Peter Hartcher.)
Senator Lambie will also speak about her meeting yesterday with the Russian Ambassador his Excellency Vladimir N. Morozov.
Lunchtime politics summary
-
The second national security bill has passed the senate without a late Labor amendment relating to the definitions of reasons for legitimate travel to declared areas.
-
A late government change which would give secret intelligence agencies the right to pass on the locations of Australian terrorist fighters to the defence forces, allowing the potential targeting of Australians.
-
Julie Bishop has questioned the usefulness of the term “feminist” and said Julia Gillard was found wanting on competence rather than punished for her gender.
-
The government is trying to confirm the death of a senior Australian Isis fighter, who was responsible for recruiting other Australians to the conflict in the Middle East.
-
The senate is expected to debate the deregulation of universities this afternoon.
Murpharoo also asked about Julia Gillard:
Just in the spirit of this occasion, I’m just interested as a woman who has achieved a significant leadership role yourself and who will go on to perhaps greater leadership roles either in politics or beyond, setting politics aside for a moment and looking back at our immediate past female Prime Minister, whether you accept that there was an element of gender in how Julia Gillard was received by the public and by the media.
Julie Bishop:
I was as delighted as the next woman who Australia had its first female Prime Minister and I said so at the time and I recognised that there was an extraordinary outpouring of good will towards Julia Gillard as our first female prime minister but then, as should be the case, she was judged on her competence and that’s where she was found wanting. And, sadly, I think, for the position of prime minister, she then turned herself into a victim and portrayed herself as a victim. That was her choice but as far as I’m concerned, she was being judged on her competence, her honesty, her performance as prime minister.
My fellow blogster Katharine Murphy is on her feet.
If I can take you back to feminism briefly, and the term. It’s confusing to me that women on your side of politics live the life and yet don’t always embrace the term so is the lack of embrace of the term because the term historically is more associated with progressive causes than perhaps the conservative side of politics and progress? I’m just interested in try to scratch the surface a little of why you don’t reject the term but you don’t embrace it?
Julie Bishop:
On the first issue, Katharine, with respect, I think you’re over-analysing it. It’s just not a term I use. I self-describe in many other ways but not as a feminist and it’s not because I have some sort of pathological dislike of the term. I just don’t use it. I can’t speak on behalf of my colleagues. They may or may not. It’s not part of my lexicon. It just isn’t. And I don’t think anybody should take office of that or read anything more than that into it. I’m a female politician, I’m a female foreign minister. Yeah, well, get over it.
Here’s a bit more of Julie Bishop on the glass ceiling. She has no bumps on her head apparently.
I’m often asked how I find the glass ceiling. I me, I refuse to acknowledge it. I’m not saying doesn’t exist for others, I’m not saying that at all, but itis the approach I’ve taken in life that if I want to do something I’ll work hard, set my mind to it and try to do it. If it comes off, that’s great. If it doesn’t come off, I’m not going to blame the fact I’m a woman for it not working. I might look at whether I was competent enough or I worked hard enough or did the breaks go my way but I’m not going to see life through the prism of gender. I can only pass on my experience and when people ask me about that, that’s the answer I give.
Julie Bishop, highlighting Women In Media, is asked about feminism.
Do you think the term “feminist” is still a useful one in current debates about women’s empowerment and advancement and would you describe yourself as a feminist?
It’s not a term that I find particularly useful these days. I recognise the role that it has played. I certainly recognise the women’s movement and the barriers that they’ve faced and the challenges that they had to overcome but it’s not something that I describe myself as. I’m not saying I’m not a feminist,I don’t reject the term, I’m just saying that it’s not a way I describe myself. First and foremost I’m a parliamentarian. First and foremost I’m a minister. So I don’t find the need to self-describe in that way.
Julie Bishop is asked if seeking powers to pass on the whereabouts of Australian terrorist fighters is new legal territory for the Australian defence forces.
We call it the Australian secret intelligence service because it’s secret. I don’t comment on intelligence matters and I don’t intend to comment on the operations of our intelligence services overseas, lest it risk lives. But the new phenomenon of foreign fighters in unprecedented numbers, this concept of home-grown terrorists who have been battle-hardened in Iraq and Syria is something we all have to deal with. Now, ASIO and the Federal Police, within the domestic scenario, collect intelligence on Australian citizens.
We now have Australian citizens who are taking part in a conflict in countries 12,000km or more away and are breaking Australian laws, very serious Australian laws, so what we need to do is ensure that our intelligence agencies are able to share the necessary information so that we can detect and, if necessary, prosecute those who are breaking Australian and potentially international laws.
Foreign minister Julie Bishop said she could not confirm reports that a senior Australian Isis member had been killed in the past week.
Mohammad Ali Baryalei, the fugitive Australian terrorist accused of masterminding a plot to kill random members of the public in Sydney, is believed to have been killed in fighting in the Middle East.
Baryalei has recruited dozens of Australians onto the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.
It is understood he died four or five days ago.
Bishop said:
We are currently seeking to verify those reports so I can’t confirm at this stage. It does highlight what the government has been saying, that Australians who leave this country to fight in Iraq and Syria are putting themselves in mortal danger.
Updated
As the foreign fighters bill passes, social services minister Kevin Andrews welcomed a report providing further evidence of Australia as a cohesive society.
Andrews said the findings of the Scanlon Foundation’s 2014 Mapping Social Cohesion report confirmed the government’s commitment to a multicultural Australia and to strengthen social cohesion.
About 2500 people were surveyed across two polls which found high levels of belonging and broad public support for multiculturalism. It found an almost unanimous (92 per cent) sense of belonging to Australia, pride in the Australian way of life (88 per cent) and that its maintenance was important (91 per cent). Support for multiculturalism remained strong, with 85 per cent of respondents agreeing that “multiculturalism has been good for Australia. Concerns over immigration were also at their lowest level since the first survey in 2007, with just 35 per cent of respondents considered the immigration intake “too high”.
If you haven’t read it already, David Marr has addressed this report. Here he is:
Tony Abbott’s crusade against terrorism has worked a miracle. Suddenly we are less cynical of Canberra and more enthusiastic than ever about the Australian way of life. We may not have taken Abbott to our hearts, but government is having a big win. Patriotism is on the march.
Foreign fighters bill passes the senate
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (foreign fighters) Bill 2014 passes the senate.
The vote is that the remaining stages be agreed to and the bill be passed:
Support:
Coalition, ALP PUP, Muir, Day, Madigan.
Oppose:
Greens, Leyonhjelm, Xenophon .
We are heading into the final vote on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (foreign fighters) Bill 2014.
The bells are ringing.
Greens amendment goes down with only the support of David Leyonhjelm. Everyone else opposed.
Labor has the support of the Greens and Leyonhjelm.
Government has support of Day, PUP, Muir, Madigan and Xenophon.
Labor loses amendment to give courts the powers to determine legitimate travel to declared areas in the foreign fighters bill.
Updated
George Brandis gives Wong a lecture on bringing partisan politics into the debate, saying the joint committee had worked in a collaborative and bi-partisan way as “patriots”.
It wasn’t the work of one side of politics, it was the work of all sides of politics.
Except the crossbenchers. It was only Labor, Liberal and National party members on the joint committee which reviewed the bill.
George Brandis damns the Labor amendment as “appalling statutory drafting”.
He says we are dealing with a crime, the courts would allow an uncertainty that was not acceptable for people who would not know when they travelled, whether they were approved for travel.
Voting now on the Labor amendment.
As before, no photos are allowed.
Here are the exceptions for travel from the foreign fighters bill:
Exception—entering or remaining solely for legitimate purposes(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person enters, or remains in, the area solely for one or more of the following purposes:
(a) providing aid of a humanitarian nature;
(b) satisfying an obligation to appear before a court or other body exercising judicial power;
(c) performing an official duty for the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(d) performing an official duty for the government of a foreign country or the government of part of a foreign country (including service in the armed forces of the government of a foreign country), where that performance would not be a violation of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(e) performing an official duty for the United Nations or an agency of the United Nations;
(f) making a news report of events in the area, where the person is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or is assisting another person working in a professional capacity as a journalist;
(g) making a bona fide visit to a family member;
(h) any other purpose prescribed by the regulations.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in 8 subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3).
A couple of points:
The government can prescribe another reason by regulation.
You can visit families but not friends.
Therefore, Labor is seeking to allow courts to decide what is bone fide.
Labor leader in the senate, Penny Wong is outlining Labor’s broad position on the national security laws, which she says has been “strong and principled”.
Wong is saying while Labor’s approach has been largely bipartisan, the government had not adopted all the recommendations from the joint committee.
She has moved an amendment to the “declared areas” offence. We need to make sure Australians who are in areas for legitimate reasons are not caught up.
Labor wants to ensure that the courts can determine whether the purpose for travel is legitimate.
The current bill determines “legitimate reasons” rather than the courts.
I will deliver the list of reasons shortly.
The senate is now voting on the Greens amendment to overturn no-go zones. Without the support of a major party, it will be a no-go vote.
We will build dams.
Barnaby Joyce opened the national infrastructure round table talks with that statement.
Penny Wright is plugging away with George Brandis in the senate, now asking about family visits. This part of the debate is a to and fro process, where senators get to quiz the minister on how the legislation works. It is actually a very enlightening process that does not happen in the lower house.
Wright says the no-go zones would have a chilling effect on people visiting family, where they take a side trip for another family event.
George Brandis says the issue here is the “sole purpose” test, where someone must be travelling solely for the reason provided to the government by the traveller. He does not think a side trip to a different place for a similar family event would be caught up.
Just by-the-by, Tony Abbott has visited Questacon. The PM’s science awards are on tonight. Abbott told the audience he used to take his kids to Questacon when he was a “younger parent”.
The senate continues to argue over the no-go zones. George Brandis is arguing there is precedence for exclusion zones because Australians already cannot visit areas like defence bases, indigenous communities and parts of the Antarctic.
Brandis says if a person is in an area when it is declared, they commit an offence by remaining there without a legitimate reason. DFAT would publicise the “declared area” in the media and online.
Government seeking powers to track down Australian terrorists
Foreign minister Julie Bishop has addressed the issue in Nick Butterly’s story this morning about the government seeking powers to track down and potentially allow the Australian Defence Forces to target Australian terrorist fighters.
The powers would allow Australian intelligence agencies to provide information to Australian defence forces regarding the whereabouts of Australian terrorist fighters.
Q: Would you like to prevent them from ever returning to Australia is the question?
The tragedy is that a number of them will be killed and a number of them have been killed in Iraq and Syria. We urge young Australians in particular not to be radicalised. Don’t succumb to the false ideology of these poisonous organisations and we urge them not to break Australian laws by leaving this country to take up arms with ISIL. I will not go into intelligence matters or the details of what our intelligence agencies do overseas. That would put lives at risk but we’re seeking an appropriate level of power and authority for our security and intelligence agencies so we can keep Australians safe. That is the primary responsibility of a Federal Government and that is what we intend to do.
Greens senator Penny Wright is now speaking to the no-go zones. This is where people have to prove legitimate reasons for travelling to excluded areas otherwise they can be jailed. It particularly targets areas where Isis is fighting.
Wright says the law risks alienating the very communities which the government will need to work with to combat terrorism. She says it is a departure from rule of law principles.
This is no departure from rule of law principles, says the attorney general.
This man is a senator further away from the chamber.
I’ll stop there.
Here is a senator in football socks, also outside the chamber.
These men are senators outside the chamber.
Just to recap on the foreign fighters bill currently before the senate, and due to be guillotined at 12.30pm, this is Daniel Hurst’s explanation of what it does:
The bill would create a new offence of advocating terrorism, toughen penalties for Australians who fight with extremist groups overseas, create new international “no-go zones” for travel without a legitimate reason, extend preventative detention and control order arrangements, and allow police to search properties secretly and notify the person about the warrant later.
It would also allow the collection of photos of millions of Australians at airports, but the bipartisan intelligence and security committee called for an amendment specifically to exclude the storage of fingerprints and iris scans.
George Brandis is now amending his own bill, following the joint committee reports.
Labor loses foreign fighters bill amendment
Labor loses the amendment vote. Leyonjhelm and the Greens vote with Labor.
PUP, Ricky Muir, Bob Day, Nick Xenophon, John Madigan vote with the government.
This is the Labor amendment. It seeks to exempt people from the offence of “advocacy of terrorism”.
Without limiting subsection (1), section 80.2C does not apply to a person who engages in good faith in public discussion of any genuine academic, artistic, scientific, political or religious matter.
Now the senate is debating the Labor amendment to the foreign fighters bill. Labor wants to expand the “good faith” provision in the bill, to ensure legitimate public debate is not caught up in the offence of “advocacy of terrorism”.
George Brandis says Labor’s amendments are too vague, technically unnecessary and that they have the capacity to confuse a jury and “defeat the purpose” of the legislation.
Labor’s Jacinta Collins says senators have a duty to get this right for our multiculturalism and urges senators to “err on the side of caution”.
We are going to a vote now and we would bring you the photo but we are suddenly not allowed to photograph a division in the senate. It is allowed in the house.
Der. Look up the Oxford dictionary.
Bill Shorten is doing a door stop on higher education, petrol taxes and other issues of the day.
Shorten notes Victorian premier Denis Napthine - who is facing an election - needs the petrol tax like “another hole in the head”.
The word “promotes” has its common speech meaning, says Brandis. Look no further than the Oxford English Dictionary.
We do have the separation of powers in this country, says Brandis. It’s not for the parliament to set out whether a T-shirt or a word applies, we can rely upon and “trust judges and juries” to apply this “clear and statutory language” to interpret the laws.
I don’t want to be tedious and repeat myself...this is about the advocacy of terrorism.
Greens senator Penny Wright says there are serious questions about the term “promote” in regard to terrorism. For example, can you wear an Isis T-shirt - “not that it would be in my wardrobe”.
Labor’s Sam Dastyari asks Brandis about what the government is doing on countering radical extremism, supporting communities which are trying to encourage young people to do the right thing.
The speed with which some people can be radicalised is exactly why we need this offence against advocacy of terrorism, says George Brandis.
Once a person has been radicalised and travelled to fight with Isil, in most cases frankly they are lost....These measures, the advocacy of terrorism, are not directed to the vulnerable young men who are the targets, they are directed to the evil old men who are the proselytisers and the predators and the advocates who seek to ensnare young men in this false and perverted and distorted view of the Islamic faith.
Attorney general George Brandis is arguing to the merits of his foreign fighters bill and rejecting Penny Wright’s criticism.
There’s not a word in this bill that impinges upon or restricts freedom of opinion. If a person wants to express radical views, if they want to promote or proselytise a radical view of the world or a non-mainstream view of the world, they are perfectly free to do so. What they are not free to do and what they shouldn’t be free to do is to advocate the commission of a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence.
The argument in the senate right now is about advocacy of terrorism.
But first, much of the news around this morning relates to the bill’s effect on genuine news reporting. Foreign minister Julie Bishop, for example, said this morning it was not directed at journalists reporting in the public interest.
To be clear, the first tranche of national security laws - already passed - contained laws which will allow governments to jail journalists.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon is hoping to insert a public interest test in those first national security laws on special intelligence operations to allow media scrutiny of the intelligence services.
The second national security bill - currently before the house - relating to media is about advocacy of terrorism, propaganda and paid advertisements.
This is the bit in the explanatory memorandum from the bill relating to advertising:
901. New subsections 119.7(2) and (3) create offences for publishing items relevant to recruiting.
902. New subsection 119.7(2) creates an offence for intentionally publishing in Australia an advertisement or item of news that was procured by the provision or promise of money or any other consideration reckless as to the fact that the publication of the advertisement or item of news is for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
903. New subsection 119.7(3) creates an offence for intentionally publishing in Australia an advertisement or item of news that was procured by the provision or promise of money or any other consideration reckless as to the fact that the advertisement or item of news contains information relating to the place at which, or the manner in which, persons may make applications to serve, or obtain information relating to service, in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country or relating to the manner in which persons may travel to a foreign country for the purpose of serving in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
904. The maximum penalty for contravening the offences in subsections 119.7(2) and (3) is imprisonment for ten years, reflecting the relative seriousness of the conduct.
Greens senator Penny Wright is straight into debate on the foreign fighters bill in the senate.
It’s simply too late to ponder the consequences and in some cases to rue them once the law is passed.
There have long been rumours around the parliament that there was advice on the need or wisdom of a burqa ban from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The story was that Asio provided advice during the life of the last Labor government after senators like Cory Bernardi started agitating for it in 2010.
Peter Hartcher at Fairfax has come up with the advice in 2011 which shows a burqa ban in parliament was both unnecessary from a security point of view and counterproductive. And he reports Asio has not changed its opinion after the recent kerfuffle which saw the presiding officers put in place a temporary ban which has since been overturned.
ASIO has found there is no valid security reason to ban the burqa.
In a confidential report, the agency says the only security consequences of banning the burqa would likely be “predominately, if not wholly, negative”.
The report by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, obtained by Fairfax Media, concluded: “Any move in this direction would likely have negative implications, including increased tensions and distrust between communities, and providing further fuel for extremist propaganda, recruitment, and radicalisation efforts.”
This is what Asio said on the security wisdom of a ban.
The Asio assessment finds no basis for any ban on security grounds: “While the burqa can be used to conceal the identity of an individual or material carried on the body, this is also true of other items of headwear and clothing.
Nick Butterly of the West Australian has an explosive story suggesting the government is seeking to target Australians fighting with Isis in the Middle East.
The Federal Government is seeking emergency powers to target and possibly kill Australian jihadists fighting overseas with radical groups such as Islamic State.
The coalition wants to give the Australian Secret Intelligence Service power to inform the Australian Defence Force about the whereabouts of Australian foreign fighters.
If approved, Australian spies could potentially pinpoint Australians fighting in Iraq, allowing RAAF jets to target them in bombing missions.
Nick reports that the government tried to include the powers in the foreign fighters bill but the senate committee wanted it properly debated in a separate bill.
The Government proposed to alter the Act governing the operation of security agencies to allow ASIS to: “Provide assistance to the Defence Force in support of military operations and to co-operate with the Defence Force on intelligence matters.”
Morning politics
Greetings earthlings,
On Wednesday, being hump day, there is a whole lot of news in the parliamentary sitting week.
Though I know you are all globe trotters, by the end of the day you will not be able to travel to certain areas in the world without risking jail.
Top of the parliamentary agenda is the foreign fighters bill, which while criticised by the Liberal-led human rights committee of parliament, will be waved through the senate with the help of a government gag. Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm and the Greens were the dissenters, but hey, crossbenchers don’t count when the majors get their heads together. This is the second national security bill and this one allows people to be jailed for travelling to no go areas for up to 10 years. There goes the visit to Aunty.
The petrol tax is still firmly implanted in the news, with finance minister Mathias Cormann defending the move as not bypassing the parliament, given the parliament will eventually have to tick it off. Motorist groups are telling drivers to keep their receipts in shoe boxes in case it does not get through. There has been a fair bit of argument in the media and amongst economists that the indexation is required to keep pace but the usual government cheerleaders such as the Institute of Public Affairs have not been kind, describing the move as “undemocratic”. Bill Shorten separated the merit of the indexation of excise from the broken promise.
This is a government who didn’t do any homework in opposition, they sleep walk their way to the budget, they came down with a series of measures that they hadn’t argued and tested with the Australian people. Why on earth should Labor let the PM get off breaking promises? He went to the polls and got people to vote from saying that there would be no new or increased taxes. Why do you think we should just allow him to lie his way into office and then sit there and say oh well, fair enough, you’re allowed to treat us all as stupid and we should just sign off on it.
There is lots more besides. By now, you may have heard the story in News Corp papers about Labor senator Nova Peris, with allegations of using funding from Athletics Australia get a fellow athlete to Australia with whom she was having an affair. More on that later.
Parliament sits at 9am, with more repeal bonfires and we can expect the higher education deregulation bill to be debated in the senate once the foreign fighters is in the can.
Follow our conversation on Twitter with me @gabrielle and my partner in crime @mpbowers. I have more of Mike’s photos coming up shortly.
