Australia politics live: iron ore price slump may dig $3bn hole in budget; Labor to push ahead with CFMEU legislation | Australian politics

Simon Birmingham is asked “if [Asio boss] Mike Burgess thought those security checks needed to be ramped up, like Peter Dutton is suggesting they would be done, wouldn’t they?” and says:

Well, there are complexities operating in all of these circumstances, and he has not been given by the government the type of tools that existed.

For example, in Afghanistan that Zali Steggall referenced, or in Syria previously, where individuals were repatriated to a third country, where then full and thorough checking could occur of identities through interview processes and the like that I outlined before.

And that full and thorough checking process wasn’t rushed like it has to be when you are dealing with whether or not you can issue a visa immediately to somebody in the conflict zone.

So there are processes or protocols put in place previously that offer a far better and more secure pathway for Australia than the one that the Albanese government has.

It was after that question that Birmingham was then asked the ‘what problem is Peter Dutton trying to solve’ given the Rafah border is closed and no one is coming to Australia, that we reported on a little earlier this morning.

The Coalition’s Simon Birmingham was asked to respond to Anthony Albanese and later, Zali Steggall’s comments that his party leader, Peter Dutton was stoking the politics of fear and division. Birmingham told ABC radio he “completely reject[s] that”:

What we’re seeing from the Prime Minister and some of the teals like Zali Steggall, who all promised some sort of kind of gentler politics, is that they are really quite happy to play the man rather than the ball.

That they are happy to go on personal attacks against Peter Dutton rather than focus on the policy debate here, which is about how Australia, with the finite number of places we offer for people to come and resettle in, Australia, handles security screening and checks in ways that ensures we do not have terrorist sympathisers or supporters among amongst those who come into our country.

We are firmly of the view that the strongest possible screening and checks should be applied and deeply concerned that the track record set by the Albanese government is one that doesn’t involve the strongest possible screening or checks, because the average processing time for those who came out of Gaza was 24 hours.

Some were processed in as little as one hour, and not all went through full and thorough identity checking, biometric checking, or other scrutiny that would enable identification as to whether they may have sympathies for the actions of Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation.

Zali Steggall is asked:

How do you feel about him using that term, and I’m going to quote it directly, he said in the op ed, he said, ‘instead of debating the facts, Labor, the teals and the Greens accuse the Coalition of being racist and heartless. When they do that, they prove they are not only Hamas’ useful idiots, they also expose their complete disregard for our national security’. What do you say to that?

Steggall:

That is incredibly incorrect. And speaking for myself, as an independent I take national security incredibly seriously. I think it is vitally important that we have strong processes.

But I also have confidence in Mike Burgess and ASIO and our professionals and our systems and departments, and I worked with the Coalition in 2021 when we had the fall of Kabul and the process of evacuating and getting people out of a war zone is complex.

It is difficult and it is dangerous, and it often happens in a fairly chaotic way. It certainly did when I worked with them in 2021 but at no time did anyone turn around and suggest that created a security fear. And I think it’s disingenuous of the coalition to really try and divide now on the basis they are just simply seeking to stoke political advantage and by stoking fear and division.

Zali Steggall, who was a lawyer before winning the seat of Warringah as as independent MP, is asked about the reports Peter Dutton is considering legal action over her comments. Steggall says:

I would view that as, again, true and trite part of the playbook of Mr Dutton of bullying and intimidating people from calling out his policy and behaviour. And I stand by this policy proposal is inherently racist, and it’s designed to foster fear and hatred of a minority group. The latest opinion piece by Mr Dutton bringing in Nazi Germany, this is all designed to foster fear. I can’t tell you how many emails, you know, I receive emails from people saying, ‘this is not racist, but’.

Again, you have to look at the underlying position you’re supporting and challenge that.

The interviewer says that Peter Dutton would respond that he was talking about the need for greater security checks on people leaving a war zone; “a war zone where the ruling body in that war zone is prescribed, terrorist organisation”.

Zali Steggall responds:

With respect, we’re talking people that are fleeing a war zone. There is no evidence that Mr Dutton has put up that suggests that, for example, we have [given visas to people with a security risk] and let’s keep in mind and this using of national security is a true and tried dog whistle that comes out when you’re trying to demonise refugees – it’s always national security is always brought out.

But what we what this started with was me trying to tell the very human story of a beautiful family that came to Australia. They’re looking for peace and for an opportunity to raise their children in an environment that is safe.

You know, the father I had met, he wanted to start a nippers program in Gaza to ensure beach and water safety for the children, so no one is suggesting a loosening or a reduction of national security measures.

And this is just the typical and tried and tested way you demonise a minority by making others feel or inferring that there is going to be a relaxation.

And so I think you have to call out this tactic of trying to use national security and fear mongering of minority groups and so to then turn around and say it can’t be called out is playing right into that playbook of bullying.

‘It is the appropriate term to be used’

Asked if she thinks she “overstepped the mark” with her comment, Zali Steggall says:

I’d be really curious to know is, what other term do you think is the term that describes a policy that is that that seeks to predominantly prejudice and discriminate in a systemic way against a class of people?

Because, again, we have this notion that the term itself is inflammatory.

It’s only because, when it’s supplied, people resent or resist that description, but if the facts support and meet the definition, then it is the appropriate term to be used.

‘He was accusing me of supporting terrorists’

Returning to Zali Steggall and her interview this morning; the independent MP was asked to clarify if her “stop being racist” comment last week in the House of Representatives was directed at Peter Dutton.

She told ABC radio:

At the time, he was accusing me of supporting terrorists, and I had others accusing me of supporting rapists, and it’s just outrageous bullying.

And, you know, I look, I think it’s just outrageous the position and the behaviour in the house, but also in this public debate where we need leadership in Australia that actually bring us together as one of the most multicultural, multi-faith countries in the world.

You know, we’re stronger by standing together. But as you know, as too often happens, what we see is a sort of, I guess, a demonising of refugees, of people seeking safe passage, safe haven from war zones, on the basis of, I think, political opportunity.

A flashback to what Dutton said

These were the comments from Peter Dutton last week when he was asked, in that “quiet moment” in the Qantas hangar, while everyone was focused on the return of the Olympic team for his thoughts on the security checks for Palestinians coming in from Gaza (which has not happened since May):

Well, I just think every Australian would be shocked to think the government’s bringing in people from a war zone, and that Asio is not conducting checks and searches on these people. We have a database, particularly out of the US, which allows for biometric checks and to bring people out on paper documentation when you don’t have a regime there to check the births, deaths and marriages registers as you would normally have, coming out of another country – it is, I think, something the prime minister needs to answer because we’re living in a heightened security threat environment, and the prime minister needs to be upfront with the Australian public.

Q: Shouldn’t everyone be screened by Asio?

Dutton:

Well, if people are coming in from that war zone and we’re uncertain about identity or their allegiances – Hamas is a listed terrorist organisation, they’ve just committed an atrocity against the Jewish people, the biggest attack on people of Jewish faith since the Holocaust – and that the government wouldn’t be conducting checks? I don’t think people should be coming in from that war zone at all at the moment. It’s not prudent to do so, and I think it puts our national security at risk.

This morning Anthony Albanese was asked what he believed Dutton’s motivation was in making the comments. The prime minister said:

It’s always about politics. With Peter Dutton, everything’s about politics, and everything is about division.

What I’m concerned about is actually delivering on the on the issues, including the ones we’ve discussed this morning, that really matter to Australians.

Peter Dutton knows full well that the same security agencies, indeed, the same personnel, in many cases, are looking after national security issues. If he doesn’t have confidence in them, he should say so.

‘There’s no moment too big for him to show how small he is’

Anthony Albanese was asked about Peter Dutton’s comments this morning as well. He answered with a continuation of the theme he started last week:

I think Peter Dutton is deeply divisive and well, that creates a risk to the nation. I was astounded that last week when we welcomed home our Olympians, a moment of national unity, Peter Dutton, once again, showed that there’s no moment too big for him to show how small he is.

Birmingham explains Dutton’s remarks

The Coalition’s Simon Birmingham is speaking to ABC radio RN Breakfast right now and he is asked about the prime minister’s comments about no one coming to Australia from Gaza at the moment.

Birmingham is asked that, given that fact, “What problem is [Peter Dutton] trying to solve?”

Birmingham:

Because he answered a question from a fellow journalist, so this wasn’t brought up by Peter Dutton, as is being put.

Yes, the borders in Gaza are closed at present.

He was asked questions about the way in which the government has handled this to date, and he outlined our view in relation to the need to put security at the forefront of consideration in response to these matters.

He responded to that as it was put to him, and of course, our expectations were the government to find pathways to be repatriating people or to be helping people in terms of leaving Gaza the type of standards that should be applied in the future were that to become possible.

This was the question Peter Dutton was asked last week, while standing in the Qantas hangar, waiting to greet the Australian Olympic team who had just returned from Paris (the previous questions were all about the Olympics).

Just while I’ve got you, Pete, before you go, and while it’s quiet, I do want to ask you about the security checks on Palestinians coming in from Gaza. Your thoughts on that this morning?

‘No one is coming out of Gaza’

Anthony Albanese was asked about Peter Dutton’s comments last week in his earlier interview with ABC radio and said:

No one is coming out of Gaza, because in order to leave Gaza, of course, Israel, due to the nature of the situation there, was having to approve people going through the Rafah crossing in order to depart earlier on.

So they know that that’s the situation, and that’s the context of Peter Dutton then saying he wants just to pause for the moment. He wants to stop people coming in when he knows that no one is leaving Gaza, at the moment.

‘This needs to be called out’

Zali Steggall is asked if she regrets the comment and tells ABC radio:

Look, obviously, it’s always better to keep you cool, it is very difficult when things are being thrown at you.

But no, I don’t, because I think this needs to be called out.

For too long, we see policies that are inherently racist, and they’re designed to foster fear and hatred of a minority group, and the fear of the consequences of calling out means that the policy itself doesn’t get examined and called out, and that’s just bullying and intimidation.

So no, I think it’s really important for the sake of our social cohesion for Australia as a nation to call this out.

Steggall v Dutton

On ABC radio RN Breakfast, independent MP Zali Steggall is speaking about Peter Dutton’s response to her speech in parliament last week. Steggall was speaking on a motion the Coalition brought to the house last week, questioning the security checks around the visas for Palestinians who had left Gaza for Australia, before Israel closed off the Rafah border in May.

Dutton kicked off a firestorm last week when he said Australia should not be accepting Palestinians from Gaza at all. No one, other than in the rare case of medical evacuation, has been able to leave Gaza since Israel seized the Rafah border crossing three months ago. Of the 2,900 visas Australia issued, only about 1,300 people made it to Australia before the border closed.

During the motion debate, Steggall told Dutton to “stop being racist” after a barrage of interjections from the Coalition benches during her speech.

Dutton is reportedly looking into legal action over the comments.

Liberals claim credit for Sydney Metro extension

A blog watcher has informed us the politics around the Sydney Metro continues, with Liberal volunteers handing our pamphlets at Sydney’s Central station taking credit for the Chatswood to Sydenham line opening this morning.

For those not in Sydney, here is a primer on why Australia’s biggest city is so excited about a train:

NSW opposition leader Mark Speakman’s face is on pamphlet, telling commuters that this project is the sort of the thing the Liberals do while in government.

The former Coalition government did start the project but lost government before it was completed. Which will happen to Labor in Queensland, when the cross-river rail project is finally opened – Labor’s project, which will most likely (if polls are correct) be opened under the Coalition.

Meanwhile, in the only public transport news I care about this morning, the Seaworld Monorail – the first monorail in Australia – is to close after four decades. RIP to a real one.

‘Looking at further reforms’ on gambling ads, PM says

The prime minister started his morning with an interview on ABC radio AM, in which he was asked about a variety of issues in front of the government, including the gambling ad legislation.

The government is offering caps. It is being pushed to go for a total ban on gambling ads.

Dr Mike Freelander, a Labor backbencher, has been vocal about wanting the government to follow through with the Peta Murphy inquiry recommendations.

Asked if he was facing revolt from his backbench, Anthony Albanese said:

I have every respect for Mike Freelander. He’s good fellow but it’s not the first time he’s gone public with various comments.

Albanese repeated the line that “we have done more in our first two years on gambling than any previous government ever”:

Now we’re looking at further reforms, and we’re consulting appropriately, including with caucus members. Indeed, I met with Mr Freelander last week.

Kylea Tink to introduce bill that would limit immigration detention

Paul Karp

Iron ore price slump could cost federal budget $3bn over four years

Paul Karp

Good morning