This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/aug/13/security-committee-chair-says-bomb-syria-politics-live
The article has changed 22 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Security committee chair says bomb Syria – politics live | Security committee chair says bomb Syria – politics live |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 8.59am AEST23:59 | |
| Liberal MP Wyatt Roy has, unsurprisingly given his positive view on the subject, indicated he’ll cross the floor to support marriage equality. | |
| Exclusive: Australia’s youngest ever MP vows to cross the floor on marriage equality http://t.co/xjcQ1i5xVS pic.twitter.com/sXJHhnVfpa | |
| Pity he won’t get the opportunity if we believe the prime minister’s comments yesterday – Abbott has all but said the cross party bill spearheaded by Warren Entsch won’t come to a vote. We could see a senate vote though as some point on this issue, given the government doesn’t control the play in the red room. Perhaps Wyatt could burst on in. Stranger in the house! | |
| 8.53am AEST23:53 | |
| Shalailah Medhora | |
| Keenan on Sky also stated the obvious on consultations with the United States. | |
| We’re constantly talking to our allies about the best way of destroying IS. Those conversations are ongoing. We’re determined to do all we can to destroy IS. Whilst they exist, they will be a threat to Australia. Obviously, we are doing that in conjunction with our allies. | |
| 8.43am AEST23:43 | |
| While I’ve been deconstructing people’s votes the justice minister Michael Keenan has been on Sky News thanking Dan Tehan for his useful contribution to the debate over Islamic State and Syria. Keenan notes however that any decision on that will be made at the highest levels of government. | |
| 8.37am AEST23:37 | |
| People's vote my @#$* | |
| Invoking Syria is of course one way to change the marriage equality conversation, but default cynicism like this creates heat rather than light. Politics is rarely as orderly is it appears. What look like grand schemes are quite often accidents or cock-ups. And in any case, people will go on taking about marriage equality. Let’s get up to speed on that score. | |
| Folks hanging off the debate over the past couple of days will know that the government attempted yesterday to shrug off its internal schism by talking grandly about a people’s vote to settle the question of whether or not Australia should legalise same sex marriage. Doesn’t that sound marvellous, a people’s vote. | |
| Except if you consider the following. The prime minister will be chief cheerleader for the “no” case. The prime minister doesn’t actually want a people’s vote at all, particularly if it is a positive vote – he just wants to buy himself a bit of time to navigate past the fight between conservatives and progressives within his own ranks. | |
| This is not a cynical judgment, I’m just adding up the sum of available facts. To understand the truth of this statement just think about the issue in these terms: if the Australian people vote in favour of marriage equality, will people like Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison and Eric Abetz and Cory Bernardi just say, ‘ah well, fair cop let’s just let the nice progressivism in.’ Of course not. Conservatives are not looking for a path to get this done, they are just looking to hold off the change for as long as possible. | |
| Gratifying in that context to see the true colours starting to show. | |
| It’s not clear yet of course what this people’s vote is. Communications minister Malcolm Turnbull said yesterday he hoped the cabinet might get to determine that. (Good luck Malcolm). I suspect that depends whether or not Dan Tehan has a view. (Sorry, too much, I know.) | |
| Last night on the ABC’s 7.30 Report, Scott Morrison said he thought it should be a constitutional referendum rather than a yes/no plebiscite. Of course a constitutional referendum has a much higher threshold for success than a plebiscite. It’s quite easy in this country to get a no vote in a referendum. | |
| Also it’s completely unnecessary. The High Court made it clear in its recent decision about the ACT same sex marriage law that the federal parliament has the power to legislate to define marriage. | |
| Ask no higher authority than Tony Abbott, who said this in May. | |
| Q: Prime minister, (same sex marriage) has come before the parliament a number of times though. Isn’t it time now to just give it to the public and make it a referendum? | |
| Tony Abbott: | |
| Well, that’s an interesting point. Referendums are held in this country where there is a proposal to change the constitution. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that the constitution needs to be changed in this respect. Under the constitution, questions of marriage are the preserve of the commonwealth Parliament; other matters of regulation of society are normally a matter for the state parliaments. Plainly, this is a matter that could quite properly come before the commonwealth parliament if members of parliament wanted it to be raised. | |
| Updated at 8.38am AEST | |
| 8.14am AEST23:14 | 8.14am AEST23:14 |
| Why would we send Australian personnel into the most dangerous place on earth: Plibersek | Why would we send Australian personnel into the most dangerous place on earth: Plibersek |
| I’ll get to marriage very shortly, but right now I’m caught between Tehan being interviewed on Sky and Plibersek being interviewed on the ABC about Syria. | I’ll get to marriage very shortly, but right now I’m caught between Tehan being interviewed on Sky and Plibersek being interviewed on the ABC about Syria. |
| Tehan has already told the ABC this is his own view – the prime minister hasn’t sent him out to make the case for Australia’s involvement in Syria. | Tehan has already told the ABC this is his own view – the prime minister hasn’t sent him out to make the case for Australia’s involvement in Syria. |
| Tanya Plibersek, meanwhile: | Tanya Plibersek, meanwhile: |
| If the prime minister is interested in Australia now being involved in Syria, he should first declare what is the legal basis for Australian involvement. | If the prime minister is interested in Australia now being involved in Syria, he should first declare what is the legal basis for Australian involvement. |
| This is no doubt there is a humanitarian disaster in Syria, 11.5m people are internally or externally displaced, but without a clear legal basis for Australian involvement and without a clear plan ... what does victory in Syria look like ... ? | |
| I think it would be very dangerous to send Australian personnel into one of the most dangerous places on Earth right now. | |
| If the prime minister wants us to change our position, he should have the courage to go into the parliament and make that argument rather than sending a backbencher out to float an idea and see how people respond. | If the prime minister wants us to change our position, he should have the courage to go into the parliament and make that argument rather than sending a backbencher out to float an idea and see how people respond. |
| Updated at 8.39am AEST | |
| 8.00am AEST23:00 | 8.00am AEST23:00 |
| Good morning | Good morning |
| Good morning politics tragics, and welcome to the final day of this parliamentary sitting week. Now riddle me this: does the Abbott cabinet not run and articulate security policy any more? | |
| I ask the question because this morning we read the chairman of parliament’s joint intelligence and security committee, Dan Tehan, thinks we should be bombing Islamic State targets in Syria. | |
| Dan Tehan, in a column in the Herald Sun. | Dan Tehan, in a column in the Herald Sun. |
| The time has come for Australia to join the military coalition seeking to destroy Daesh [Isis] in Syria. We are acting in Iraq against Daesh, with our Hornets launching air strikes on a regular basis. We should be doing the same in Syria. | |
| Tehan is a good bloke, and he’s entirely within his rights to express an opinion on this score given he runs the security committee and takes a very close interest in these issues. However, there is some history here. When the prime minister ran into cabinet-level trouble a couple of months back on its citizenship revocation proposal (pests like Malcolm Turnbull and Christopher Pyne and Barnaby Joyce thought it might be good if the law was constitutional) Tehan and other backbenchers on the security committee materialised publicly to make Abbott’s case for him. | |
| In fact this bunch wanted the government to go further on citizenship: strip citizenship from people who were sole citizens. So I’m looking at Tehan’s contribution this morning with the sum of that recent history in mind. | |
| Perhaps there has already been a discussion within the government and Tehan merely has been deputised to reflect the government’s new view (as opposed, for some reason, to the defence minister or the prime minister). Or perhaps this is a bit of authorised boundary riding in order to test the current bipartisanship around the Iraq commitment. Labor supports military action in Iraq, but the opposition thus far has drawn the line at crossing the border into Syria. | |
| Ah yes, here is Tanya Plibersek now at the doors of parliament, talking to reporters. Has the government’s policy on the deployment to the Middle East changed, she wonders, and if so, would the government be so kind as to offer a briefing? There are serious questions about the legality of incursions into Syria. What, exactly, is going on here? | |
| Tehan’s intervention is no small or academic thing given the delicacy of political support for the current deployment, and I note there’s another story in the Hun’s sister paper, the Telegraph, this morning indicating the United States has asked for Australia’s help in the conflict. All this foregrounding is about as subtle as a meat axe – and we all know how much the prime minister desires a point of difference between the government and Labor on a security issue. We’ve seen that dynamic play out in bursts of pure politics (never mind coherence or fairness or technicalities or the long game) for the best part of 12 months. | |
| The only question in my mind is: why is the backbench leading the charge? | |
| Anyway we’ll pursue the threads of this story through the course of the day. Loads of other issues still burbling in the building. I’ll address where we are with same-sex marriage this morning in the next post. | |
| Let’s open the conversation for today. The thread is waiting for your business. You can also reach Mikearoo and me on the twits @murpharoo and @mpbowers | |
| Grab your flat whites. Here comes Thursday. | Grab your flat whites. Here comes Thursday. |
| Updated at 8.37am AEST |