There is a condolence motion and an acknowledgement of October 7 before we get into the questions.

Anthony Albanese speaks on Indulgence:

7th October 2023 was a day of pain and terror for Jewish people around the world. When our parliament first gathered in the aftermath, the shock at what Hamas terrorists perpetrated was still raw and growing with each new and devastating detail.

Their attack on a music festival that promoted friends, love and infinite freedom, an event attended by so many young people, underlined a core truth – Hamas stands in opposition to all humanity and all that we value as human beings. Two years on, we remember those who were lost on that day, the largest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Jewish Holocaust.

Over 1,200 lives taken without mercy. We remember Australian, Galit Kaban who was tragically among them. Galit’s brother, Danny, joins us in the gallery today and I will meet with him tomorrow. I say to him we hold you in our hearts. We also hold in our hearts all who are still being held hostage, those who remain alive and those who tragically, not only had their freedom stolen from them, but their lives as well. We stand with their families and with all those who wait.

We stand with all those who endure loss. We stand with all those who endure hope. All who have had to hold this 2-year vigil which must feel like an eternity. Even now, as President Trump presents us with an opening to peace, we owe it to all of them to never forget what was done.

This morning, the AFR reported that at the Australia-Japan Joint Business Conference in Perth on Monday, Resources Minister Madeleine King “said Australia’s gas exports had helped keep it relevant in regional security discussions and the government would not let any future domestic gas reserve stand in the way of that.” The headline? “Australian gas keeps the peace in Indo-Pacific: King.”

Please. This claim that Australia needs to export gas “because security” isn’t new. The idea that both Australian and regional security rely on the continued or even expanded extraction and supply of gas by multinational companies have been around for quite a while.

It’s both wrong and dangerous.

It suggests that stable security relationships require supplicant trade relationships – doing whatever gas-buying countries want, like Korea and Japan. 

Really, it suggests that if Australia doesn’t do that, the region will become insecure and that Australia might become irrelevant.

Never mind that Japanese companies routinely pay no tax or royalties for Australian gas. Same for US companies. Often, they on-sell this free Australian gas at a profit – see IEEFA estimates that this scored Japanese companies profits of AU$1 billion last year.

The implication here is that if this situation doesn’t continue, security relationships will become unstable and might even collapse.

This argument is a clever attempt at stifling opposition to Australian gas expansion. But again, it’s wrong. Australia and Japan, for example, have longstanding security agreements that have broadened and deepened under the Albanese government.

Both countries see their deepening security ties as critical to stability in the Asia-Pacific, and to managing the role of China. No tension or change in the bilateral trade relationship over one supply line would put this at risk, and any changes could be managed with the most basic diplomacy.

Refuting this “security” argument on its own terms, though, also reveals something even more duplicitous at play.

In this framing, “security” means “stability” – that is, the maintenance of the status quo. “Security” means nothing more than the temporary prevention of inevitable, direct conflict. It has nothing to say about genuine and lasting peace, human flourishing, or ecological security. It has nothing to say about how Australia is making the very real regional security of climate change much worse.

With its approval of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas extension, legislative favours for Santos, and subsidies for American frackers, the Australian government appears to care about the genuine security of Australia and the region just about as much as a sub-imperial petrostate can be expected to. Which is to say, not much at all.

Over at the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislative Committee Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked the Attorney-General’s Department about the lobbying code of conduct, which they are responsible for administering.

Hodgins-May asked how many complaints or possible breaches of the code have been recorded in the last five years.

Reported breaches – around 50. Of those, 14 confirmed breaches – all administrative in nature.

The “most serious” sanction is to deregister a lobbyist for three months, which hasn’t happened in the last five years – and would amount to little more than a slap on the wrist even if it did.

Last year, Senator David Pocock prompted an inquiry into lobbying in Parliament House. The Australia Institute recommended expanding the scope of the lobbyist register and an independent review into possible stronger sanctions for non-compliance.

Hodgins-May also asked Senator Don Farrell if he thinks it’s problematic that ministerial prohibitions on lobbying don’t apply to shadow ministers (she gives the example of Simon Birmingham, who has taken a job at ANZ). Farrell promises to give it more thought, but isn’t at first blush concerned as Birmingham would have been out of government for three years at that point.

OK, now that the ‘Australian’ brigade are losing their minds on the socials after being reminded of citizenship law, let’s head back to the parliament.

It is the downhill slide into QT – so brace yourselves. It is not going to get any more grown up on there.

Right on cue, here is Michaelia Cash (we are not repeating the breathless pearl clutching quotes). What is particularly egregious about this hysteria, is that Cash would never in a million years question Australians who have served in the IOF, which has been credibly accused of committing multiple war crimes and judged by major humanitarian, legal and academic bodies, as well as by the UN to be committing a genocide in Gaza, being able to return to Australia. (Which legally, as citizens, they can).

Cash would most likely also scream outrage at any Australians who have served in the IOF being investigated by Australian or international authorities for alleged war crimes, just as she would accuse anyone of revealing any information about any returning IOF soldiers as putting their lives at risk.

Which is why laws exist. To allow the authorities to carry out any investigations and if necessary, charge people for breaking Australian laws where they will face Australian courts.

In absurd scenes in a Senate Estimates hearing today Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet officials and Minister Penny Wong refused to even confirm if any of the ISIS brides’ cohort have returned to Australia.

After questions by Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Michaelia Cash, about the
status of the ISIS brides, PM&C officials claimed they were unable to reveal any details due
to privacy concerns.

When asked how many ISIS brides had returned to Australia, PM&C officials also claimed
privacy concerns.

When asked if the Prime Minister knew how many ISIS brides had returned to Australia
Minister Wong took the question on notice.

Given this debate is once again raging (we seem to do this every couple of years as a country) let’s be clear – Australian citizens have the right to return to Australia. There are only very rare cases where citizenship can be stripped, and that is only if the person is a dual citizen – Australia can not leave people stateless.

So even if you call Australian citizens ‘ISIS brides’ they are still citizens. And they have the right to return to Australia, where, if they have broken Australian laws, can be investigated and judged by Australian authorities and courts. Australian citizens have the right to access Australian services and safety nets. They are subject to the same rules as every other Australian citizen.

This is not a left/right issue – it is citizenship law. It’s the constitution, not wishful thinking.

The POWERFUL (it is a rule of journalism that when writing on the intelligence and security committee, you must always remind people it is POWERFUL even thought it is just a committee and can not force the government or parliament to follow its recommendations (as the Morrison government proved on several occasions) but because these people see intelligence documents we all have to remember how POWERFUL they are.) Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has agreed with the government’s proposal to list Terrorgram as a terrorist organisation.

That makes it a crime to associate or belong to the group.

Terrorgram is considered a Nationalist and Racist Violent Extremist group by security agencies, which makes it the far right of the far right. It uses Telegram (hence the name) to coordinate most of its activities and was listed in June. The PJCIS has ticked off that listing.

It’s a bit different because it is mostly online, but PJCIS chair Raff Ciccone said it met the definition of a terrorist group:

Although the online and decentralised nature of Terrorgram makes it different from other listed terrorist organisations, it is nevertheless an organisation that advocates terrorist acts.”

The Committee reaffirms Parliament’s commitment to protecting Australians from violent extremism and safeguarding the values of our democratic society.”

If you want to know more about how people can fall down these rabbit holes, take a look at Conspiracy Nation by the excellent Cam Wilson and Ariel Bogle.

There is not a lot going on, so let’s take a look at AAP’s finance report:

A sell-off in Australia’s heavyweight financials sector is leading the share market lower, while most other sectors are under selling pressure.

The S&P/ASX200 slipped 37.3 points on Tuesday morning, down 0.42 per cent, to 8,944.1, as the broader All Ordinaries lost 35.4 points, or 0.38 per cent, to 9,244.8.

Nine-of-11 local sectors were trading lower by lunchtime, as consumer-facing plays and real estate stocks also faded.

Inflation warnings from the Reserve Bank and a subsequent reduction in interest rate cut hopes have “rattled” households and dragged consumer confidence to six-month lows in September, according to Westpac’s monthly survey.

“This news, and signs of firmer consumer demand and a pick-up in housing markets, looks to have sparked renewed doubts about the path of interest rates, weighing on near-term expectations for family finances and the economy,” Westpac senior economist Matthew Hassan said.

With the Albanese Government proposing major changes to Freedom of Information (FOI) law last month, there’s been a renewed interest in how the FOI system works (or doesn’t work).

The Australia Institute has new research out today about how the system has become much more expensive, secretive and slow.

But what is the process like for an applicant? 

I made a couple of FOI requests in response to the Government’s claims about the FOI system. 

Yes, these are FOI requests about FOI requests.

Here’s how they have fared, just over one month on. 

Evidence base for Government claims

In his defence of the FOI changes, Health Minister Mark Butler made some remarkable claims:

• The FOI system is “being inundated by anonymous requests”.
• “Many [FOI requests] we’re sure are AI bot-generated requests.”
• “[FOI requests] may be linked to foreign actors, foreign powers, criminal gangs”

AI bots, foreign powers and criminal gangs – it has the makings of a geopolitical thriller.

But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

FOI: To the Office of the Health Minister

I submitted an FOI request to the Department of Health asking for the evidence on which Minister Butler relied.

I heard back a month later from the Health Minister’s Chief of Staff:

“The Minister’s Office has conducted reasonable searches for documents in scope of your request. … I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken … and that such documents do not exist.”

FOI: To the Attorney-General’s Department

I submitted a very similar FOI request to the Attorney-General’s Department, since they’re the ones responsible for the proposed laws.

The deadline for a department to process an FOI request is 30 days.

29 days after I made my request, I was told the Department “requires further time” as “the work is complex and voluminous”.

But how did my relatively simple request become complex and voluminous?

In short, the Department warned it could merge my request with “a number” of other requests also dealing with the matter of FOI reform:

“We have identified over 2,300 documents as potentially relevant to one or more requests and this has created a voluminous amount of documents to process.”

The Department also explained:

“the area of the department primarily responsible for identifying, reviewing and deciding on the documents’ relevance to the requests continues to be heavily engaged in the FOI reform work which has generated these requests”

In other words, if an issue is timely, the Department is too busy to release information about it.

Another month’s delay would mean the evidence base for the changes goes unscrutinised. As it is, the inquiry looking into the proposed changes have already closed submissions.  

Fortunately, these time extensions now require the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s (OAIC) approval. Within a day, the OAIC rejected the Department’s request for an extension. The OAIC criticised the Department for trying to merge the FOI requests:

“Each request needs to be considered on its individual merits.”

Right is on my side. But does it matter? The deadline has passed and the Department hasn’t released the documents.

Reflections

“No such documents” exist to support the Health Minister’s sensational claims about the Freedom of Information system, yet my almost-identical FOI request to the Attorney-General’s Department could have been linked to 2,300 “potentially relevant” documents.

This is one reason why even a modest fee per FOI request can add up: either government agencies truly do not share information or their handling of FOI requests is inconsistent. Either way, you may have to go to many places, and try many forms of words, before you get useful information out of government.

My experience also shows how the government holds all the cards. They say my request is “complex and voluminous”. I don’t have the documents yet, so how can I prove otherwise? And when the independent umpire refuses a time extension, the Department still doesn’t release the documents.

The FOI scheme has become slow and secretive. The Albanese Government’s changes would make it even harder to use.

The 000 bill has been tabled in the parliament.

You can read more about it, here.