Good night kids
Well blogans, bloganistas, it’s been tip top to be back with you all – but I think we can shut the Politics Live shop for this evening. The first run of commercial TV coverage for the government’s security statement has been negative: long on rhetoric, short on substance. I really don’t think the prime minister helped himself with the boots and all framing. When you try too hard, you just try too hard, really.
So, today, in five points:
- The prime minister launched a statement on national security that promised to examine the revocation of citizenship for foreign fighters and put a new public servant in charge of counter terror efforts and possibly designate Mosul as a no go zone.
- On the way through, he gave Muslim leaders an elbow in the ribs for failing to be emphatic enough against extremism. Predictably, the community leaders were less than impressed with the character reference.
- In parliament, Abbott was quizzed on whether he intended to invade Iraq or the Ukraine; whether he had made a secret deal with Japan on submarines; and why he said last week that dubious imported berries (that have infected some consumers with Hep A) were being checked when officials said today that only some dubious imported berries were being checked.
- The answers to these inquiries were: No; Sort of, with the Dutch; Sort of but not now because I’ve promised something different; and you just made that up.
- In the margins, government senate leader Eric Abetz had to take on notice a question inviting him to explain how the prime minister had changed since the attempted leadership spill (too many ways to mention); the foreign minister Julie Bishop pointedly praised the Muslim community for engaging against extremism; and officials revealed that Prince Philip was actually a knight of the colonies for a least a fortnight before the good news was shared with the unwitting general populace on Straya day.
That’s about it really. Time for a bit of restorative child’s pose. See you all again, bright and early, on the morrows.
Charles prevailing over Philip – perish the thought
I’ve checked back in with Daniel Hurst about the knightmare. There was a wrinkle involving Prince Charles, according to testimony given today by Elizabeth Kelly – the department’s deputy secretary for governance.
Here’s Daniel:
The department sought advice from the office of parliamentary counsel and decided a change to the “letters patent” - the overall rules for the Order of Australia - would be better than simply making an honorary appointment.
“Reference was made to the way in which Prince Charles was appointed to the Order and it was thought appropriate to appoint Prince Philip in the same way in which Prince Charles was appointed to the Order,” Kelly said. “One of the reasons is in relation to the order of precedence. If the amendment was not made by virtue of change to the letters patent then Prince Charles would prevail over Prince Philip, would be above him in the order of precedence, and that would be inconsistent with the Queen’s protocol. The other factor that was taken into account is that would allow the appointment to be made other than on an honorary basis … A non-Australian citizen can be appointed to the Order on an honorary basis or, if it’s not, by a change to the letters patent.”
Kelly said the department provided advice to the prime minister on 16 December and further advice including the necessary documents on 18 December. Those documents were signed by the prime minister on 19 December and sent to the governor general, Sir Peter Cosgrove, before being dispatched to the Queen, she said. Kelly said she did not have “any specific knowledge” as to whether there was any understanding that Buckingham Palace was inclined to approve the appointment prior to the documents being prepared. The Queen formally approved the recommendation on 7 January. Kelly said this was the date the knighthood took effect, but the decision was not revealed until 26 January because “the intention was always that the announcement would be made on Australia Day”.
Updated
I knock around in my electorate – the prime minister goes all over the place
Liberal backbencher Craig Laundy is on Sky News addressing the prime minister’s point about whether the Muslim community is currently vocal enough against extremism. The prime minister says not. Laundy says he can only speak about his Sydney electorate, and its large Muslim population.
It is so open, in my electorate, discussions about this. (Community leaders) engage with me day in and day out.
Sky political editor David Speers asks Laundy – so is the prime minister right about Muslim leaders needing to preach more vigorously Islam as a religion of peace?
Laundy:
Muslim leaders in my electorate say that every day and they do mean it.
The speech was delivered at the Australian federal police headquarters, where the prime minister was flanked by three ministers, scores of officials and six Australian flags, but where he was not available to answer questions about his statement’s contents. Which was a shame, because it raised a lot of questions.
My colleague Lenore Taylor is very good on the security speech.
You can read her here.
Muslim leaders respond to this morning's challenge from the prime minister
My colleague Shalailah Medhora has been talking to various Muslim community leaders after the prime minister’s national security speech. Readers will recall the prime minister observed that he wished more leaders would speak out against extremism.
Fair to say a number of leaders are less than impressed. Here’s a sample.
- Head of the Lebanese Muslim association, Samier Dandan said the community “has had enough” of the prime minister using national security as a way of “scapegoating” Muslims. “This is your last card, prime minister, your last card to save your career.” “Stop asking us what we’ve done [to stamp out extremism],” Dandan said. “Mr prime minister, what have you and your government done?”
- Head of the Arab Council of Australia, Randa Kattan said the comments were “promoting hatred and inflaming racism”. Kattan said she has seen a sharp increase in racism levelled at Muslim Australians since the Martin Place siege in Sydney last year, and that the comments by the prime minister are “dog-whistling to the racists out there”. “It’s not helpful, it’s divisive. It labels our community as being responsible for the actions of a few,” Kattan said. “It’s not helpful for anyone to make these statements… How much more can we condemn?”
- Sheik Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, spokesman for the Australian national Imams council, said the prime minister’s statements fail to take into account the “silent, behind the curtains” efforts of Muslim leaders to eradicate terrorism. “I’m sure Imams around Australia collectively already speak out against Daesh [Isis],” Saleem told Guardian Australia. “What we said against violent extremism, we meant.” The sheik said that community intervention has worked better than the security agencies in identifying radicals. “It is because of the efforts of Imams that Australia is safe,” Saleem said, adding that Abbott’s comments “demonise Muslims at large”.
Daniel Hurst has reviewed the exchange in estimates about the process which led to the appointment of Prince Philip as a knight of the far below colonies. In addition to the piece of information I flagged earlier – advice about this brilliant idea was kicking around in November last year – it was revealed that the official appointment took effect on 7 January – meaning Phil was a knight of the far away colonies for about a fortnight before this knowledge entered the public domain.
All hail Sir knight.
Updated
There are so many good things to talk about senator ..
I did share a tweet from Penny Wong earlier about the government senate leader Eric Abetz having to take on notice examples of how the prime minister had changed.
It’s worth watching the whole exchange.
There are so many good things to talk about senator that it’s hard to recall them all immediately.
Ouch.
In more good news for the Abbott government ..
Less good news?
Quick conference with Daniel Hurst indicates there was evidence given to this effect a bit earlier – the knighthood for the duke in the country far far away was first raised in November.
Further questions have been placed on the notice paper.
News to me, shall chase it up. Shorten, to Abbott.
Q: I refer to evidence given in senate estimates during question time today. Can the prime minister confirm that his office first raised awarding a knighthood to Prince Philip with the department of prime minister and cabinet in November last year? If that is the case, why did the PM raise it with his department in November but never got around to raising it with any of his cabinet?
Abbott says it wasn’t raised in cabinet because honours are not cabinet decisions.
Thinking of Swedes.
Will noone think of the Swedes?
Q: I refer to the decision to exclude Sweden from the government’s submarine selection process. The prime minister has said: “It is almost two decades since Sweden built a submarine”. Is the prime minister aware that Sweden has built or significantly refitted 11 submarines since 1995? The last delivered in 2013. Has the prime minister made his captain’s pick based on false information?
The prime minister is not amused. The weasel words in the member opposite’s question give away the fact that what I said last Friday was absolutely correct.
The last full submarine design and build program delivered in Sweden concluded in 1996. That is what Labor wants to do, bring back the Oberon submarine, give it to the Swedes, they will modify it and it will be as good as new. These people have no shame. They sat on their hands for six years endangering our nation’s defences and now with a ridiculous question like that, they want to give us a 1960s or at best a 1980s submarine.
It is not good enough.
(I repeat, will noone think of the Swedes?)
Bill Shorten has moved through Iraq to the Ukraine to berries and has surfaced on submarines.
Q: I refer to an article in the Weekend Australian by Paul Kelly which states that the prime minister “had struck a government to government deal of sorts with Abe.” Has the prime minister already done a deal with Japanese prime minister Abe to build Australia’s submarines?
The prime minister steps around this quite carefully.
The short answer is no. As I indicated to the house last week, last time we met, we are exploring submarine cooperation with three countries. I have had discussions about submarine partnerships with Japan, I have had discussions about submarine partnerships with the Germans and I have had discussions about submarine partnerships with the French.
It is true that those discussions, up until now, have been more detailed with the Japanese because the Japanese make the best large conventional submarine in the world but under the arrangements that were announced last week, we will now enter into equally detailed discussions with the Japanese, the Germans and the French, with this objective: to give our country the best possible submarines, at the best possible price, with maximum Australian participation in the production and sustainment of these submarines.
You know what that means? That means more jobs for Adelaide. That is what that means.
Families minister Scott Morrison – reaching out on childcare. Heeellooooo, Labor.
I thank the opposition for taking up the invitation to meet this week to talk about how we can work together on this. In opposition, we worked together on the NDIS, aged care reforms and we can work together on this and I look forward to the contribution.
Labor’s agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon wants to know why the Abbott government effectively abolished the inspector general of biodiversity. (I think Fitzgibbon means biosecurity.) In any case, agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce is confused by what effectively abolished means. The inspector general is still there, and he’s called Bond. Not 007. Another Bond.
The education minister Christopher Pyne has more good news from the Abbott government. (He loves that arch formulation just a little bit too much.) Teacher training institutions will be required to jump through a number of very important hoops before their accreditation will be confirmed.
Failure to be convinced is clearly contagious.
To the vexed question of berries surveillance.
Q: Today, the secretary of the agriculture department informed senate estimates that ‘we have not made changes on surveillance rates for berries broadly at this stage’ but just days ago, the prime minister said: “We have moved to 100% screening of these sorts of imports”. Given the prime minister’s track record, who is telling the truth about frozen berries screening, the secretary of the agriculture department or the PM?
Tony Abbott:
There is no inconsistency with what has been said. As the secretary of the department has indicated, not all berries are being 100% screened but, as I said, all the berries connected with this outbreak are being 100% screened.
Very easy.
Opposition frontbenchers have declined to look convinced.
Labor is in the Nile. A river in Egypt. No that was Bill Shorten’s zinger, wasn’t it? It appears to be coming out of Joe Hockey’s mouth now.
Speaking of hooey, here is the inevitable metadata Dorothy Dixer. The justice minister is currently explaining why agencies that clearly can get metadata now for their investigations (based on the statitistics being quoted) need legislation to ensure they can get metadata. He backs in this line of reasoning up by saying metadata isn’t content – which is a concept so debunked now that it really does amaze me that people keep saying it. But Michael Keenan is saying it. Then he hopes that Labor won’t follow the Greens down the path of civil liberties extremism. To be clear that is my formulation, not Keenan’s.
The treasurer cannot confirm a question from Clive Palmer which suggests that austerity is hooey.
Joe Hockey:
We do not want to be in a position where we are subservant to other nations. We do not want to be in a position where we are beholden to people that lend us money. That is not the way we want to be.
The prime minister is asked to confirm reports that not one Daesh foreign fighter has had their Australian welfare payment cancelled. The prime minister cannot confirm those reports, as it happens.
Interesting. The prime minister made a point this morning of saying the Muslim community needed to do more to counter extremism.
The foreign minister Julie Bishop has another line here in question time.
I want to applaud members of our Muslim community here in Australia who are taking a stand against extremism and working with the government with mosque and community groups to keep our people safe.
Abbott confirms a joint mission was discussed with the Dutch in the Ukraine
Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek. Did we plan to invade the Ukraine?
Q: I refer to reports in ‘The Australian’ newspaper that the prime minister suggested unilaterally sending 1,000 Australian troops to eastern Ukraine last year. Did the prime minister consider such action?
(The answer is yes, with some qualifications. Here’s what the prime minister said.)
In the days immediately after the shooting down of MH17 by Russian-backed rebels, in the days when the Russian-backed rebels were refusing to release the bodies to the international community, we did talk to our Dutch friends about what might be done to ensure that those bodies came back to their loved ones.
We did talk to the Dutch about this, as the Australian people would have expected. We were not going to allow dead Australians to be violated by Russian-backed rebels. We were going to stand up for the rights of their families. We will never apologise for standing up for the rights of Australians here and abroad.
We did talk to the Dutch about what might have been done in those perilous circumstances, because certainly they were perilous circumstances – what we could do to ensure those bodies came back to their loved ones. There was talk with the Dutch about a joint operation.
Was it suggested, was the number that the deputy leader of the opposition puts to me suggested by me? No. Was this some kind of frivolous exercise by me? No. This arose out of the most important and the most necessary discussions between the Dutch military and our own to uphold and defend our vital national interests and to do the right thing by the people of our country.
This is about Australian values.
(Abbott in continuation. Just in case you missed the community, fighting back, against the ‘death cult.’)
Shorten opens the hour of glower with a question to the prime minister. Has the prime minister ever participated in any discussions where a unilateral deployment of Australian troops to Iraq was considered?
Abbott:
No, I haven’t.
The prime minister then reads out the statement I told you about just before question time – from the ADF chief and the head of the defence department. The one that says Abbott never raised any proposal with them.
The government sees Iraq invasions and raises them with a Dorothy Dixer on national security.
The prime minister:
Our community is fighting back.
Bill Shorten on Faith Bandler.
Faith spent her life not battling her own injustices but the injustices she saw inflicted upon others. Surely that is humanity at its purest. A life spent in the service of others.
Faith was an activist, a fighter, a warrior. But her weapons were compassion, respect and intelligence.
Shorten loops in a reference to constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians.
Let us promise to honour her memory by carrying on her work. Let us vow not to rest until Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are honoured and recognised in our nation’s founding document. Let us make Faith’s lasting memorial a full life of equal opportunity for every Australian. In Faith’s words it would be a wonderful thing. May she rest in eternal peace.
I wish to inform the house that our nation has lost a great champion of civil rights with the passing of Faith Bandler AC on 13 February.
The prime minister has moved on now to paying tribute to Faith Bandler, indigenous leader.
Her crowning achievement was the 1967 referendum. She helped to inspire the highest yes vote ever recorded in a Federal referendum. You might remember that over 90% of Australian voters voted yes to change. She was a great Australian who should long be remembered by our country and by this parliament.
No-one is more familiar with the changeable unpredictable nature of Australian weather and the dangers it can pose than the people who call the tropical north home. Even by their rugged standards ..
(This is Bill Shorten.)
Question time
God, 2 o’clock. The prime minister is opening today on the cyclones up north. This is a very trying time for everyone impacted by the cyclones, Abbott notes. It’s a general update about conditions and disaster relief.
Really?
Senate Estimates. I asked Senator Abetz how the PM has changed. He took it on notice!
— Senator Penny Wong (@SenatorWong) February 23, 2015
Back briefly to the subject of whether or not the prime minister flagged (sorry) a unilateral invasion of Iraq – the place where we started first thing this morning – back with Peta and her scented candles wafting soothing aromas up the Fellini-esque corridors.
Defence has spoken. If the prime minister was planning any such action, he never raised it with us say Binksin and Richardson.
On Saturday 21 February the Weekend Australian reported that the Prime Minister had raised with “Australia’s leading military planners” the idea of “a unilateral invasion of Iraq, with 3,500 Australian ground troops to confront the Islamic State terrorist group”. The chief of the defence force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, and the secretary of the department of defence, Mr Dennis Richardson, advise that this claim is false. “At no point has the prime minister raised that idea with the ADF and/or the department of defence, formally or informally, directly or indirectly.”
Inevitable, that we would do this, really.
#BrickParliament battle of the flags @murpharoo @GuardianAus #politicslive http://t.co/rww8O5zNSo pic.twitter.com/9sBFJSKvqm
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) February 23, 2015
I’m continuing to read the review of Australia’s counter terrorism machinery that formed at least some of the basis for the Abbott speech this morning. I gave you a link to that document earlier on. It’s worth a read if you have a chance. I’m still working through it but there’s an interesting discussion on the relative merits of a homeland security or national security department versus the current split CT responsibilities. The report goes to a inherent conflict the attorney-general has as guardian of civil liberties and guardian of Asio. It doesn’t bring forward any particular recommendation but it’s interesting to think through some of those issues.
The report also gives Edward Snowden – the NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower – a thumbs down. Snowden’s revelations about the scale and scope of government surveillance, the report says, has made the task of maintaining a technological edge over terrorists more difficult.
Have readers seen Citizen Four yet? Do go and watch if you have the chance. It’s quite amazing to watch a whistleblower watch the consequences of his whistleblowing in real time. However you line up in the Snowden debate, it’s worth your time.
Politics this lunchtime
Enough about flags – well, probably not quite enough actually but let’s not get sidetracked.
Let’s take stock of the security morning with a lunchtime summary.
- The prime minister delivered a speech which flagged a couple of new things in the security space: the possible designation of Mosul as a no go zone; the revocation of citizenship rights for dual nationals involved in foreign fights; an RDA-style prohibition on hate preaching; a new public servant to coordinate counter terror efforts across agencies – and wrapped those things in a list of what the government is already doing in the national security space.
-
Tony Abbott continued with the rhetorical framing we’ve seen over the past few weeks: people who intend to do us harm should not exploit our happy go lucky Aussie nature and intermittently lax immigration regulations during periods of Labor governments in order to achieve their ends. He also thought Muslim leaders should speak up more about the evils of extremism. Like prime minister Najib in Malaysia.
- He said the domestic security environment was deteriorating courtesy of events overseas, the participation of Australians in those events, and the rise of lone wolf actors who could cause harm with very little planning and coordination.
- Abbott chose to make his address at the AFP headquarters, not in a parliamentary forum, which would have been the more conventional forum at times when parliament is sitting.
- The prime minister’s decision forced the opposition leader Bill Shorten to make his reply in less optically desirable circumstances. Shorter Shorten: I’m with you Tony on the substance but I’m not with you on your rhetoric.
Updated
A tale of two backdrops.
Bill Shorten #flagging on security? @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive http://t.co/rww8O5zNSo pic.twitter.com/Xeuqr7B4zp
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) February 23, 2015
Woah. Six flags has a precedent.
@murpharoo @lenoretaylor @mpbowers see this, no record! Maybe equalled though?! pic.twitter.com/ecGiM5kc8n
— Cogs (@Wallywalta) February 23, 2015
Shorten gives Abbott another tap on Muslim leaders not doing enough.
Q: Do you think senior Islamic leaders in Australia are doing enough to combat the extremist menace?
I fundamentally believe that the front-line with dealing with terrorism is the Muslim community. I have great confidence that periodically it has been Australian Muslims speaking up working with our police and security agencies which have provided great assistance to defeating these people. I wouldn’t want to do anything which sends a message to all those brave people, to all those community-minded people, to all those great Australians that somehow their contribution is less welcome or less valued, because it is welcome and it is valued.
Q: Should the group Hizb ut-Tahrir be prescribed or restricted or banned?
I can certainly assure people that when it comes to dealing with crazy violent extremism and those who would advocate it, that Labor will oppose them every step of the way and we’ll work with the government based upon the best evidence that we can bring to prevent the activities of those who would try to defeat the Australian way of life.
(Translation: maybe, let’s see what that other guy does.)
Haste and confusion is not security's friend
The opposition leader will take a couple of questions.
Q: Do you share the deadline that the prime minister outlined today, that all the changes especially on metadata should go through by the end of this month?
Shorten:
The work of the parliamentary committee of intelligence and security is quite strenuous and they are working with all possible application. So what we need in our parliament is to make sure that we do indeed deal with the laws, but we make sure that we have the laws which this country needs.
Haste and confusion is never the friend of good, sensible security in the future. I would submit our record in the last year of dealing with legislation, working through the amendments and coming up with outcomes which make this country a better place and that’s what we will do.
We must reach out
Shorten isn’t inclined to lecture Muslim leaders. He says community engagement is at the heart of countering extremism.
We know that the tiny minority of Australians drawn to violent extremism do not represent the Islamic faith, nor Australia’s great, generous and diverse Muslim community. As the former director-general of ASIO David Irvine said last year, the strongest defence against violent extremism lies within the Australian Muslim community itself. This is wise counsel.
It reflects the good work and goodwill of our Australian Muslim community who have been working with our police and security agencies to counter violent extremism. Labor rejects the notion of irreconcilable differences between Islam and Christianity. History shows time and time again the ability of people of good will regardless of faith, to band together to defeat evil.
We must reach out. We must reinforce our community policing and throw open the doors to positive, meaningful and rewarding communities for our young people.
Terrorists get what they want when we fracture, when we divide, when we surrender our way of life. Today our message to those who would seek to do us harm is simple.
Australia is and always will be stronger, more generous and braver than you. Terrorists may seek to spread division, discord and suspicion and we will always choose unity and optimism. Terrorists may trade in fear and hatred, but we will always choose compassion and courage.
No, Bill
In the past year, the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security has done outstanding work, considering draft legislation, canvassing the views of experts and the community and proposing important amendments to improve the final laws. Good people from both sides of the parliament have worked together to strike the right balance towards enhancing our security and protecting the rights and liberties that we respect and have fought so hard to defend.
Better protecting the freedom of the press is just one example of the improvements that have been made through careful and reasonable discussion and compromise.
(The Labor leader seems to think because he wrote a ‘I’m sorry sorta’ letter after helping the Abbott government pass laws that criminalise the reporting of special intelligence operations last year that he has protected press freedom. Bless. Not.)
New measures deserve full and careful consideration
Shorten:
The measures that prime minister Abbott proposed this morning deserve full and careful consideration and Labor will engage constructively with them. We recognise that what is required here is not propaganda, but facts. Not hysteria, but sensible discussion of practical changes. Given Australia’s character, our history, our love of freedom, there should always be a strong presumption in favour of the liberty of individual citizens. Labor believes this presumption should only be reduced, rebutted or offset to the extent that current arrangements are proven to be inadequate. Any proposed changes must be shown to be effective for the nation as a whole, and any alternative solution must deliver a superior good in terms of the safety of our community.
The Labor leader Bill Shorten has hoisted up a couple of flags as well. Denied the opportunity of a response on equal footing in the chamber, the Labor leader is in the caucus room.
Shorten:
Labor believes that keeping Australia secure and our people safe is above politics. It is the solemn responsibility of our parliament. That is why Labor has consistently adopted a bipartisan approach on these matters. We believe that this partnership is in the interests of our nation. Historically Labor has always demonstrated our preparedness to do what is right and necessary both in government and in opposition. We believe that when it comes to fighting terrorism we are in this together.
What a difference a week makes. Last week, he moved a spill motion. Today, backbencher Luke Simpkins was in the audience at AFP HQ for the security speech.
I suspect the most controversial element of the speech (apart from the elbow jabs at Muslim leaders not doing enough and the arm chair knockers, whomever they might be) will be the signal on revoking citizenship.
But let’s have a quick reality check on that point. Abbott’s meta message in this outing was the government has been doing much to keep the community safe. It has been a core focus of the government from day one. The truth is the government has blown hot and cold on national security. There are periods of activity and then long lulls which don’t entirely make sense, unless viewed through the prism that there are people inside the government genuinely concerned about personal liberty – and the inevitable trade-offs that happen when the tin hat is donned.
The idea the government would take action on citizenship was first raised more than 12 months ago – in late January by then immigration Scott Morrison, who told the radio host Ray Hadley that the government was looking “right now” at several options including the revocation of citizenship. He was ‘repositioned’ a day or two later by the attorney-general George Brandis who said that wasn’t part of the picture. Whatever the truth: whether it was on the table or off the table – that’s a specific measure we can apply to cut through the ‘we are on to this’ rhetoric.
Same with foreign fighters. The prime minister suggested the government had been on to that with alacrity. Well, not so much, actually.
Fantastic pictures coming from Mr Bowers.
We are doing our duty
This was the finale.
Now, I can’t promise that terrorist atrocities won’t ever again take place on Australian soil. But let give you this assurance: my government will never underestimate the terror threat. We will make the difficult decisions that must be taken to keep you and your family safe. We have the best national security agencies and the best police forces in the world. Our agencies are working together, all levels of government are working together.
We are doing our duty. That’s why, in coming years, you will see a stronger and more secure Australia. This is what you have a right to expect. And to demand of me and of us, and we will deliver for the people of Australia. Thanks very much.
Muslim leaders need to speak up
Now, I’ve often heard western leaders describe Islam as a religion of peace. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often and mean it. I’ve often cited prime minister Najib of Malaysia who was described the Islamist death cult as against God, against Islam and against our common humanity.
Everybody, including Muslim community leaders, needs to speak up clearly, because no matter what the grievance, violence against innocents must surely be a blasphemy against all religion.
Hate preachers
I can confirm that the government will be taking action against hate preachers.
- This includes enforcing our strengthened terrorism advocacy laws.
- It includes new programs to challenge terrorist propaganda and to provide alternative on-line material based on Australian values.
- And it will include stronger prohibitions on vilifying, intimidating or inciting hatred.
(Wasn’t this the government’s preferred construction on 18C? Will check.)
Immigration: the particulars
Dual nationals:
- The government will develop amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act to revoke or suspend Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals.
It has long been the case that people who fight against Australia forfeit their citizenship. So Australians who take up arms with terrorist groups, especially while Australian military personnel are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, have sided against our country. And should be treated accordingly.
For Australian nationals:
We are examining suspending some of the privileges of citizenship for individuals involved in terrorism. These could include restricting the ability to leave or return to Australia, and access to consular services overseas, as well as access to welfare payments.
Here's the immigration element
The prime minister says he’s been speaking to people.
When it comes to someone like the Martin Place murderer, people feel like we have been taken for mugs. Australian citizenship is an extraordinary privilege that should involve a solemn and lifelong commitment to Australia. People who come to this country are free to live as they choose. Provided they don’t steal that same freedom from others. We are one of the most diverse nations on earth. And celebrating that is at the heart of what it means to be an Australian. We are a country built on immigration and are much the richer for it. Always, Australia will continue to welcome people who want to make this country their home. We will help them and support them to settle in, but this is not a one-way street. Those who come here must be as open and as accepting of their adopted country as we are of them. Those who live here must be as tolerant of others as we are of them. No-one should live in our country while denying our values or rejecting the very idea of a free and open society. It’s worth recalling the citizenship pledge that all of us have been encouraged to recite. I pledge my commitment to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
This has to mean something. Especially now that we face a home-grown threat from people who do reject our values. Today, I am announcing that the government will look at new measures to strengthen immigration laws as well as new options for dealing with up a citizens who are involved in terrorism.
Get on board, senate
The prime minister says given the picture he’s painting the parliament needs to support the government’s various legislative proposals including the retention of metadata. Metadata is the next big policy proposal.
The government’s data retention bill, currently being reviewed by the parliament, is the vital next step in giving our agencies the tools they need to keep Australia safe. Access to metadata is the common element to most successful counter-terrorism investigations. It’s essential in fighting most major crimes, including the most abhorrent of all – crimes against children.
(That’s an arguable proposition, actually. But agencies certainly say that.)
Post Martin Place: we will not let our enemies exploit our decency
It’s clear that in too many instances, the threshold for action was set too high. And that the only beneficiary of that was the Martin Place murderer himself. For too long, we have given those who might be a threat to our country the benefit of the doubt. The perpetrator was given the benefit of the doubt when he applied for a visa. He was given the benefit of the doubt for residency and citizenship. He was given the benefit of the doubt at Centrelink. He was given the benefit of the doubt when he applied for legal aid and in the courts, there’s been bail when there should’ve been jail.
This report marks a line in the sand. There is always a trade-off between the rights of an individual and the safety of our community. But we will never sacrifice our freedoms in order to defend them, but we will not let our enemies exploit our decency either. If immigration and border protection faces a choice to let in or keep out people with security questions over them, we should choose to keep them out. If there’s a choice between latitude for suspects or more powers to police and security agencies, more often we should choose to support our agencies. And if we can stop hate preachers from grooming gulible young people for terrorism – we should.
(Note the if there.)
We are looking at listing Mosul
The prime minister says the government is looking to create a new no-go zone.
Last December, we prescribed travel to Syria’s al-Raqqa province where the death cult is based without a legitimate purpose. We are now looking at listing Mosul in Niniveh province in Iraq which the death cult also controls. And we have given ASIO the further power to request an Australian passport be suspended pending further security assessment, and that’s happened eight times so far.
Within weeks of taking office, I asked the attorney-general to develop a government response to foreign fighters.
(Really? My recollection is this took many months.)
There’s now an Australian cohort of hardened jihadists
Abbott says the domestic threat has increased because Australians have joined the overseas conflict.
Already at least 110 Australians have travelled overseas to join the death cult in Iraq and Syria. At least 20 of them so far are dead. Even if the flow of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq stopped today, there’s now an Australian cohort of hardened jihadists who are intent on radicalising and influencing others. The number of Australians with hands-on terrorist experience is now several times larger than it was with those who trained earlier in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And of that group, two-thirds became involved in terrorist activity back here in Australia.
The signs are ominous. ASIO currently has over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations, and that’s more than double the number a year ago.
Lone actors and the police who deal with them
Abbott:
Today’s terrorism requires little more than a camera phone, a knife and a victim. These lone actor attacks are not new, but they do pose a unique set of problems. All too often, alienated and unhappy people brood quietly, feeling persecuted and looking for meaning, they self-radicalise on-line. Then they plan attacks which require little preparation, training or capability. A short lead time from the moment they decide they are going to strike and then actually undertake the attack makes it hard to disrupt their activities.
Police do not have the luxury to watch and wait. They apply their best judgment and they do so fully aware that the armchair critics will find fault. Still, police act because they have enough facts to make informed judgments. Some of these raids may not result in prosecutions.
But frankly, I’d rather lose a case than lose a life.
We were right and our critics were wrong
Abbott:
Last September, the national terrorist threat level was lifted to high, which means that a terrorist attack is likely. Critics said we were exaggerating. But since then, we’ve witnessed the frenzied attack on two police officers in Melbourne and the horror of the Martin Place siege.
Twenty people have been arrested and charged as a result of six counter-terrorism operations conducted around Australia. That’s one third of all the terrorism-related arrests since 2001 within the space of just six months.
So the judgment to lift the terror threat level was correct.
The new dark age
Abbott:
The terrorist threat is rising, at home, and abroad, and is becoming harder to combat. We’ve seen on our TV screens and in our newspapers the evidence of the new dark age that has now settled over much of Syria and Iraq. We have seen the beheadings, the mass executions, the crucifixions and the sexual slavery in the name of religion.
There is no grievance here that can be addressed. There’s no cause here that can be satisfied. It’s the demand to submit or die.
By any measure, the threat to Australia is worsening. The number of foreign fighters is up. The number of known sympathisiers and supporters of extremism is up.
The number of potential home-grown terrorists is rising. The number of serious investigations continues to increase.
No greater responsibility
The prime minister opens thus.
Today, I want to speak to you about keeping our country safe. I want to speak to you about the threat that we face, the work done already to keep you as safe as we humanly can, and the things still needed to prevent further terrorist attacks. Today my colleagues and I are joined by representatives of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Defence Force, ASIO and agencies like CrimTrac which helps police and other law enforcement bodies to share information.
The men and women in this room are on the front line of Australia’s fight against terrorism. There is no greater responsibility on me, on the government, than keeping you safe.
Can we have a bit of space please, the prime minister shoos at still photographers. Space for ... ?
Television cameras? Onlookers?
Updated
National security statement
Justice minister Michael Keenan is the warm up act for the prime minister, who is on shortly. We cannot have ..
a situation where our freedoms in Australia and the generosity of the Australian way are used against us. The government is required to respond to these new threats, and to make sure that our agencies have the resources and the powers that they need to do so.
As many in this room know today, the prime minister has been very focused on this challenge and he has shown very great leadership in these areas. His government takes national security seriously.
Government gazette notice announcing Rolf Harris has been stripped of his Order of Australia @NewsTalk2UE pic.twitter.com/bEKZt8riBW
— Frank Keany (@redneckninja) February 22, 2015
Brisk old news day. Thanks to Frank Keany for this update about Rolf Harris.
Down in estimates there is currently more skirmishes about CCTV. Carol Mills from the department of parliamentary services is unhappy about a critical report from the privileges committee. (Mills was accused of misleading a committee about how much she knew about the use CCTV in the building.) Senators on this estimates committee are unhappy that Mills is being rude about the privileges committee. And so it goes.
By the by, we’ve just noticed that the review of Australia’s counter-terrorism machinery (the document upon which the prime minister will draw for today’s security statement over at the AFP HQ) has been posted on the DPMC website. I’ll scan it in between live updates but if you see anything interesting – sing out.
Sky is just broadcasting a live feed of AFP HQ. I count six flags behind the prime minister’s podium.
My colleague Shalailah Medhora has eyes on agriculture estimates – particularly pertinent given the concerns about imported berries that surfaced last week. Agriculture officials have told the committee the offending products are in the process of being withdrawn but otherwise it is situation normal. No increased vigilance.
Paul Grimes, secretary of department of agriculture:
We have not made changes on surveillance rates for berries broadly at this stage.
Rona Mellor, deputy secretary, department of agriculture:
If you’re asking me, have we increased staffing in frozen berry imports for food safety purposes right now then the answer is no, we have not.
I’d rate the location for today’s statement – Tony with the boys in blue – as a poor start on the finesse test, just quietly.
Did Speaker Bishop know the security statement wasn't actually in the chamber?
Welcome to parliament diary. The standing orders provide the sitting times for the house so today we sit at 10am. Government business includes a statement by the prime minister on national security and consideration of the senate amendments to the environment legislation amendment bill which has passed the house. Should the house agree to these amendments the final legislation will result in stronger protection for turtles and dugongs from illegal poaching and trading with penalties tripling for killing or injuring threated species. The legislation does not however impact on native title holders rights. Question Time at 2pm, good viewing.
(This is the little video message Madam Speaker records every morning when parliament sits. Looks like she thought it was government business.)
No questions either, apparently.
The alert has just come through for the security statement – which bizarrely, is not in the parliament. It’s at AFP headquarters.
Better run everyone. (Yes that picture of Barnaby from the Senate door this morning is so marvellous I’m going to share it again.)
AFP headquarters? Seriously?
Updated
Another colleague Ben Doherty has been watching immigration estimates this morning and has kindly sent me this update.
The majority of children in immigration detention in Australia will be released “in days and weeks”, department secretary Michael Pezzullo has told Senate estimates. “Difficult cases,” where one or more parent have raised a security concerns with authorities, “may take months or longer”.
There are currently 126 children in “held detention” in Australia. Sixty-eight of those will be returned to Nauru – they are in Australia for medical treatment or the medical treatment of a relative. Those numbers are in addition to 116 children in detention on Nauru. Nineteen are “difficult cases”, where a child in detention has a parent, or close relative, whose situation has raised security concerns. These may taken “months or longer” to resolve.
Secretary Pezzullo is also being grilled over an immigration official’s trip to China that cost the taxpayer $44,000 and reportedly included $400 bottles of whiskey and escorts at a nightclub. The secretary says he won’t comment on the matter because it is under investigation. He says he has not seen the invoice for the trip.
Updated
Rather attractive booklet – get 'em while they're hot
Liberal senator Dean Smith.
Just on a pet issue, if you don’t mind – the Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta enjoys a significant birthday this year and Smith is keen to know what has been planned to mark this great milestone. The clerk of the Senate Rosemary Laing told Smith the attorney general’s department has set up an “interdepartmental committee” to coordinate “input from interested parties”.
Laing says a “modest program of events” includes an invitation to the British High Commissioner to give a lecture in June about the Magna Carta. She notes, too, that a 1297 version of the landmark document is on display in the public area of the parliament. And a “rather attractive” booklet is available in the parliament’s gift shop.
Woooot.
(Thanks to Daniel Hurst.)
Updated
Things you can only hear in estimates: now, about the Magna Carta.
Even if Tony Abbott is exploiting the terror threat, that doesn't mean there isn't a terror threat.
— Michael Cooney (@cooneymj) February 22, 2015
Just to get us all limbered up and thinking – Michael Cooney, who has advised a couple of prime ministers and opposition leaders and now heads up the Chifley Research Centre has made this contribution on Twitter this morning. We need to look at two things today: the content of this security update, assessing the relative merits of various proposals; and the tone in which the statement is delivered.
Cooney makes a salient point here. And this is a big challenge for Tony Abbott, wading out into this territory aggressively at a time when he faces all kinds of political trouble, largely because he’s failed the trust test with the Australian voters. Even if it’s not exploitation, it can easily look like exploitation if you overegg the arguments.
The last couple of weeks, Abbott has been in a take-no-prisoners frame of mind. Today will take a bit of finesse. Because of the circumstances Abbott has visited on himself and the government – he has to meet both the facts test and the finesse test today.
Updated
To security in more specific Fellini-esque places – the president of the Senate, Stephen Parry, is facing a series of questions in Senate estimates about parliamentary security arrangements.
My ever vigilant colleague Daniel Hurst has tuned in
Parry has told the committee he’s happy to brief the committee privately but it would be foolish to go into too many details publicly, because it would provide information “to anyone who wanted to do us harm.” (I’m totally with Parry on this – I cannot for the life of me understand why people bang on about security in this building like it’s an abstraction to be hyperventilated about rather than a practical consideration. Of course the opposition should ask questions about arrangements in the building, particularly given the complete debacle about burqa bans we saw last year – but I’m talking about reporting of security arrangements in great detail. Why? Why do that? Is it news?)
Anyway I’ll stop raving. Back to Daniel who only raves in very limited circumstances.
Labor senator Joe Ludwig has asked Parry about the sensitive issue of surveillance of MPs and senators in parliament house – the issue of the use of CCTV that has been raised at previous estimates hearings. Parry says he is mindful of the need for parliamentarians to go about their duties unimpeded. Parry makes a broader point: all parliaments face the challenge of balancing the need to be open to the public with the need to ensure the safety of building occupants.
That’s a dilemma and it’s something that we wrestle with on a daily basis.
Updated
It’s far too early in the year to be giving awards but the Liberal MP Paul Fletcher deserves a gritted teeth badge for a response he gave on Sky News this morning. Fletcher was asked about the invasion of Iraq story over the weekend that I flagged first up. He said the prime minister had denied the story – but even if something happened somewhere by way of private conversations, who cares? Isn’t this just prudence? Fletcher noted in the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy had made sure that all options were considered.
Limbering up for some estimates.
Sam, Nick and Barnaby don't sweat it, join us @GuardianAus for #politicslive @murpharoo http://t.co/rww8O5zNSo pic.twitter.com/0BiVYYFT6A
— Mike Bowers (@mpbowers) February 22, 2015
There are a number of Senate estimates hearings on around the building today – I’ll tune in to those where possible. Agriculture, finance and environment are among the portfolios.
Updated
I should of course mention there will be other elements to the statement beyond those four dot points – immigration measures are expected, and there’s the hate preaching theme that the justice minister was keen to speak about on the ABC this morning.
The background supplied from the prime minister’s office last night says the review found that Australia has entered a new, long-term era of heightened terrorism threat, with a much more significant “home grown” element. It assesses that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising. On all metrics, the threat to Australia is worsening. The number of foreign fighters is increasing, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing, and the number of potential terrorists, including many who live in our midst, is rising as well.
The outgoing national security legislation monitor, Bret Walker, noted on radio this morning that terrorism is a permanent state of affairs, not something that ebbs and flows. His argument is that policy measures to counter security threats should not be thought of or characterised as temporary measures for a temporary problem.
Updated
The new public servant to oversee cross agency counter-terrorism efforts is being characterised variously this morning in news previews as a new terrorism tsar.
God I hate that characterisation.
Fortunately I’m not alone.
@murpharoo why is it always a tsar? Never a khan or a shogun
— Michael Lucy (@MmichaelLlucy) February 22, 2015
A shogun would be good.
Updated
Looking ahead to the prime minister’s security statement mid-morning, the content will reference the government’s response to the internal review of Australia’s counter-terrorism machinery. This review was announced by Tony Abbott and the attorney-general, George Brandis, last August as part of the government’s various tranches of legislation intended to strengthen the security environment.
According to advice given on background from officials last night, Tony Abbott’s commitments today will include:
- a new national counter terrorism coordinator;
- a new national counter-terrorism strategy will be developed, in close cooperation with the states and territories, to better coordinate efforts to counteract threats, including from home grown lone actors and radicalisation;
- a new national strategy to counter violent extremism and build community cohesion will be considered by COAG later this year;
- a new system of terrorism warnings.
Updated
The LDP senator David Leyonhjelm has declared himself the official opposition leader for the day, given the likelihood that Bill Shorten will adopt a “me too” stance on national security. Leyonhjelm has been everywhere this morning.
The AM host Michael Brissenden referenced Leyonhjelm’s remark this morning – giving up our liberty means that the terrorists win. He asked Keenan whether some Liberal colleagues might agree with that proposition. Keenan says not. He says the government is mindful of liberties in Australia but the security environment has worsened, therefore community safety must take precedence over the rights of the individual.
Updated
Keenan on AM is redrawing the already redrawn line. This is about more than countering domestic terrorism threats, the government wants to stop hate preaching.
Q: Another issue widely anticipated today is the possibly banning or prescribing of the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. Is that likely?
We have already made sure that the laws in Australia are strong enough to make sure that if you advocate terrorism ...
Q: But they don’t advocate terrorism. They advocate a caliphate and Sharia law but they have never advocated terrorism.
We want to make sure there is not room in Australia for people to preach hatred ... these are the things the government has been looking at.
We shouldn’t be free in Australia to preach hatred.
Updated
The justice minister, Michael Keenan, is the early morning radio voice on national security. He’s being interviewed on the ABC now.
The security environment has changed. We are living in an environment where the terrorist threat level in Australia is now at high and we need to respond appropriately and make sure we when we are looking at things public safety is foremost in our mind.
Updated
The long journey for an audience with the most powerful woman in Australia begins in the Fellini-like corridors of Parliament House in Canberra. This is John Lyons, writing in The Australian this morning.
Fellini-like corridors? We can always dare to dream. Good morning, and welcome to Politics Live.
I’m kicking off this morning with Lyons not only because he has very kindly pretended that we work in exotic and stylish climes – but because his demolition job on the prime minister and his chief of staff Peta Credlin dominated news over this past weekend.
Among other eyebrow arching contentions published in The Australian on Saturday morning, Lyons had the prime minister mulling a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Let’s just say that again because it might slip past on the first reference: a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Abbott has described the report as fanciful (because he never sought any formal advice or formally suggested any invasion of another country minus support from key allies.)
Credlin was depicted (as she often is) on Saturday as the scheming witch in the office who either stopped blunderbuss Tony too often, or didn’t stop him nearly often enough. Lyons this morning has shared the results of a sit down interview/chat with the “lady-behind-or-too-often-beside-or-occasionally-inappropriately-in-front-of” The Man.
Credlin’s office is an island of style in a functional building. There are aromatic candles and she makes a point of having huge vases of fresh flowers — often orchids which she grows herself on the balcony of the Canberra flat she shares with her husband, Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane.
(A witch with Ecoya and orchids. Ok then.)
Lyons depicts Credlin as sanguine about the unprecedented level of attention being paid to a backroom type.
I know I’m click bait, she recently told a colleague – adding there had been 35,000 mentions of her in the media in six months.
She’s holding up well, Lyons tells us – just in case any normal person actually cared.
All around the Fellini-like corridors of the building, I can hear government colleagues kicking cats. If you need any further evidence of how much Australian politics at every level has jumped the shark, do consume the Lyons opus.
Tony Abbott for his part is moving forward – attempting to redraw various lines. Since the unfortunate leadership debate in the last parliamentary sitting week he’s attempting to present as a person whose back isn’t against the wall – which is very hard to to when your back is, in fact, against the wall.
The specific line he’ll redraw today, the prime minister tells us, is the line between personal liberty and security. The focal point today is not Peta Credlin’s candles or the inevitability of her tremendously high profile – but a national security statement. That’s coming up mid morning.
In the interim the Politics Live comments thread is open for your business and you can get us, as always on the Twits @murpharoo and @mpbowers
Updated
