Taskforce Maxima downsizing causes alarm as bikies re-emerge in club colours

The bikies are back, the union bosses are back, the Premier’s back & @QLDLabor continues to hold QLD back #qldpol pic.twitter.com/W3yWQGUBYU

— Lawrence Springborg (@SpringborgMP) January 17, 2016

Taskforce Maxima gutted by ALP: https://t.co/HRbgMKh1YH

— DesHoughton (@DesHoughton) January 17, 2016

• January 17, 2016 12:00am
• Des Houghton The Sunday Mail (Qld)

QUEENSLAND’S anti-bikie taskforce has been stripped of more than two dozen police in a move that has alarmed and mystified crimefighters.

The bikies are back, the union bosses are back, the Premier’s back & @QLDLabor continues to hold QLD back #qldpol Picture Lawrence Springborg.

Taskforce Maxima was downsized to 85 members over the Christmas break and bikie gangs have brazenly re-emerged in club colours on the Gold Coast – at the Broadbeach dining precinct where violent clashes by gangs in 2013 led to the police crackdown. Gangs have also reappeared in Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley.

Member for Surfers Paradise John-Paul Langbroek said police could offer no explanation for the wind back. It was “absurd and dangerous”.

“The thought of them returning is petrifying,’’ he said.

New figures obtained exclusively by The Sunday Mail shows the blitz on outlaw bikie gangs has been a major success with the arrest of 2573 offenders on 8582 charges, including murder and attempted murder, grievous bodily harm, torture, extortion, kidnapping and drug trafficking, especially ice.

The disruption of the criminal gangs has led to a dramatic reduction in street violence, house breaking and car theft, and has prompted legendary crimebuster Bob Bottom to declare Maxima the most successful police operation in Australian history.

A Maxima spokesman said despite the cutbacks the taskforce was still making great strides against criminal gangs.

A video still from the 2013 Broadbeach brawl that sparked the bikie crackdown. Picture: A Current Affair

Mr Langbroek said he had disturbing reports from the Broadbeach Alliance that outlaw bikies had been spotted wearing their club colours. The alliance confirmed the sightings but declined to comment, instead planning a report to Gold Coast City Council.

Mr Bottom warned of possible political interference leading up to the release next month of a secret review of anti-bikie laws by a panel chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Alan Wilson.

The submissions have not been made public, a spokesman for Justice Minister Yvette D’Ath said.

Mr Bottom said: “Any downgrading of taskforce Maxima raises serious question marks relating to an obvious political move to dismantle Queensland’s highly successful law enforcement effort in tackling bikie gangs.”

“What is particularly concerning is that, with bikie gangs leaving Queensland because of the crackdown now under pressure to scale back, it was revealed this week that a violent new bikie group from overseas has elected to set up a chapter in Queensland.

“The gang is known as Satudarah, meaning ‘one blood’, and was founded in Holland and has a world-wide reputation for violence.”

Fortitude Valley Nightlife Association chief Nick Braban said it was a mistake to scale down Taskforce Maxima.

Police Minister Bill Byrne said the State Government would not tolerate organised crime and were adding an extra 226 police this year but did not address the reduction in Taskforce Maxima.

The violent new bikie group Satudarah is reported to be setting up shop in Queensland.

Malcolm Turnbull’s tacticians in plan to keep Prime Minister out of spotlight

• January 17, 2016 12:00am 
• Renee Viellaris The Courier-Mail

MALCOLM Turnbull has given Australians a great gift – a holiday from politicians.

The Prime Minister and his senior team are purposely staying out of the limelight to give voters a break from tit-for-tat battles, unless necessary.

While Mr Turnbull will be visible on the world stage with his first visit to the United States as Prime Minister, domestically the “break” will last until after Australia Day. Federal Parliament resumes for the first time in 2016 on February 2.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is filling the media vacuum, warning voters about everything from the Turnbull Government’s so-called plan to increase the GST to 15 per cent, cuts to paid parental leave through to health.

But Mr Turnbull and his ­tacticians have decided Australians need to enjoy the beach, barbecues and get ready for the school year without politicians crashing their holiday break.

Part of the wider political strategy is to also not “overexpose’’ Mr Turnbull, who this year will hand down his first budget, outline his plans on tax reform and ask voters to elect him for the first time in about September.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will hand down his first budget this year. Picture: Mark Evans

The plan was to give voters time off after the release of the Royal Commission into Trade Unions and Governance report but some frontbenchers have made appearances, such as Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop who has provided commentary on Jakarta’s terror attacks.

Mr Shorten yesterday blasted the Government for going into “hiding” from voters on much-touted looming reforms.

``Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberals have been in hiding since the new year because they don’t want to debate issues people are worried about, like their plan to increase the GST and cut penalty rates,’’ Mr Shorten said.

Jackie Trad dismisses royal commission into trade unions

• January 9, 2016 12:00am
• Jason Tin
• The Courier-Mail

ACTING Premier Jackie Trad has backed CFMEU figure Michael Ravbar, saying Labor shouldn’t take action against the union boss because there is insufficient evidence to back the allegations against him.

In an exclusive interview with The Courier-Mail, Ms Trad also defended the CFMEU itself, saying the union as an organisation should not be punished over the actions of individuals.

“It’s a bit like saying that because some footballers use cocaine then all footballers use cocaine – it’s just not the case,” she said.

The Acting Premier also vowed the Palaszczuk Government would not reinstate the requirement for union officials to give 24 hours’ notice before entering worksites.

Labor repealed the Newman government law last year, but the report of the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption recommended it be reintroduced.

Ms Trad also slammed the inquiry as a political exercise.

Commissioner Dyson Heydon’s report was highly critical of Mr Ravbar, the CFMEU Queensland boss and ALP national executive member.

Referring to the alleged destruction of tonnes of documents, Justice Heydon wrote that Mr Ravbar “wanted the documents to be destroyed so they could not be put before the Commission”. He did not recommend criminal charges against Mr Ravbar over the document scandal, but noted that there was already a police investigation into the matter.

Acting Premier Jackie Trad has poured scorn on the union royal commission and its motivation.

Ms Trad said it was “absolutely and entirely” up to Mr Ravbar as to whether he stood down from the ALP national executive.

But she said the party should take action only when there were “allegations with sufficient evidence that warrant criminal charges”, adding: “And I haven’t seen that emerge from the royal commission.

“Quite frankly, there is insufficient evidence as far as I can see,” she said.

“The commission didn’t recommend criminal charges be laid and this has been ... a very heavily politicised royal commission from the outset.

“So I think it needs to be viewed from that perspective as well.”

The Acting Premier and influential Left faction figure also defended the CFMEU, saying the union had not been charged “as an organisation”.

“The organisation as a whole, just because of a couple of individuals, shouldn’t be completely punished,” she said.

Ms Trad stressed that anyone found to have committed criminal offences should “face the full force of the law”.

But she was adamant that CFMEU should not be punished because of the actions of individuals, saying there was no “systemic evidence” of corruption against the union.

Ms Trad described the inquiry as the “baby” of the federal Coalition Government and a political extension of it, while accusing Justice Heydon of making “very broad, sweeping allegations ... allegations that actually didn’t have sufficient evidence to back them up”.

“Quite frankly (Justice Heydon) can opine all he likes – maybe he should opine in front of LNP or Liberal Party functions as opposed to sitting on the bench at a royal commission,” she said.

Ms Trad says there is insufficient evidence against former CFMEU state secretary Michael Ravbar.

Asked whether the state would adopt the commission’s recommendation that laws be introduced requiring union officials to give 24 hours’ notice before entering worksites, Ms Trad said the Government would reject the proposal.

“The Palaszczuk Government made very clear, in Opposition and in the lead-up to the last election, that we would bring back world-class workplace health and safety laws in this state and we won’t be repealing those laws,” she said. “We have made a commitment and we will continue to maintain a commitment not to wind back any safety provisions, any workplace conditions and entitlements that Queensland workers enjoy, regardless of what Tony Abbott’s politicised commission says.”

Ms Trad suggested the commission should have spent time hearing about “sham contracting and those workers who wanted to blow the whistle on unsafe work practices that many companies are actually presiding over in this nation”.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott earlier this week defended the establishment of the inquiry as “the right and decent thing to do” in an opinion piece in The Australian.

Jamie Briggs case: ministerial standards must be reviewed

• JENNIFER ORIEL
• THE AUSTRALIAN 
• JANUARY 5, 2016 12:00AM

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

The resignation of Jamie Briggs for breaching ministerial standards during a night out in Hong Kong with public servants raises serious questions about the standards and the process for investigating noncompliance.

Malcolm Turnbull signed off on the Statement of Ministerial Standards last year. The statement covers legal guidelines common to management and shareholder groups.

However, it also includes standards related to appropriate ministerial behaviour that lack clarity, appeal to due process and explicit reference to relevant legislation. Such obscure standards provide ample opportunity for abuse of process.

The finding against Briggs is that he breached ministerial standards, but the Prime Minister has not clarified publicly which standards were breached.

Briggs has conceded his behaviour constituted an “error of professional judgment”, but such an ambit admission generally would be deemed insufficient to warrant resignation from a plum political post. The ambiguity has left many questions unanswered, leading to public criticism of Briggs, the consular staff member who complained about him and government handling of allegations.

The investigation into Briggs raises questions about the quality of ministerial standards as well as procedures governing them. On the information made public, the complaint appears to have been classified incorrectly, leading to a disjuncture between proper procedure, investigative processes and natural justice.

According to reports in The Weekend Australian, the consular staff member reported that Briggs had commented on her “piercing” eyes, placed his arm around her and kissed her on the neck. Briggs claims instead that he had told another person in the bar the staff member had “beautiful eyes”, placed his arm around her when posing for a photograph and gave her a goodnight kiss on the cheek.

As with many such allegations, there are no independent witnesses to verify which is the more accurate version of events. In normal professional circumstances, such allegations would be managed under standard sexual harassment procedure. Like any procedure, it can be abused, but it provides greater legal recourse for abuse of process than the ambiguous guidelines for interpersonal behaviour found in the ministerial standards.

Some members of the governance subcommittee with responsibility for assessing the outcome of the investigation into Briggs expressed concern to The Weekend Australian about it.

They believe ministerial standards have been set impossibly high. They are right to be concerned, but the chief problem is not high standards for ministerial behaviour. It is the obscure nature of the standards and the procedure for investigating breaches of them.

I managed complaints procedure in the education sector, writing harassment and discrimination procedures in compliance with federal and state legislation. There are set stages established in good complaints processes to provide transparency and natural justice to both complainants and respondents. The case against Briggs presents problems at the earliest stage because the complainant allegedly chose not to lodge a formal complaint, requesting instead that her concerns be resolved informally by direct communication to him. In such a case, an employer may still choose to take action if they deem the threat of vicarious liability significant enough to warrant it or internal standards have been breached.

Generally speaking, however, such standards must be related explicitly to legislation to give effect to such serious remedies as the public reprimand of an employee and his resignation.

It is unclear why Turnbull and his advisers chose to manage the informal complaint about Briggs under the ministerial standards rather than procedural instruments related explicitly to the relevant legislation. The ministerial standards do not provide clear procedural steps for the classification, management and resolution of complaints about ministerial behaviour related to allegations of unwelcome sexual advances or harassment.

On the information available, the government appears to have handled poorly the allegations about Briggs. However, the apparent mismanagement may be less a consequence of the Turnbull administration in general than the ministerial standards in particular.

Successive Liberal and Labor administrations have sought to redress the problems with ministerial standards and codes of conduct. A 2012 paper on codes of conduct provided analysis of the predominant concerns in Australian and overseas parliaments.

They include unclear parameters for behaviour, a lack of independent oversight in complaints investigations and a limited range of penalties for breaches of ministerial standards. All are relevant to the complaint about Briggs.

The allegations about Briggs may not have been made formally, but they have produced official consequences. The lack of a proper complaints-handling process leaves complainants and ministers in a precarious position.

It is in the interest of both the Liberal and Labor parties to review the ministerial standards or replace them with guidelines for professional behaviour related explicitly to the law.

Jennifer Oriel is a political scientist and commentator.

Opinion: Queensland alcohol management laws in no way similar to Bjelke-Petersen regime

• January 5, 2016 12:00am
• Paul Williams
• The Courier-Mail

Protests were quickly stamped out during the Bjelke-Petersen years.

I LOVE the Brisbane band Powderfinger. Their song These Days is an iconic piece of common man’s art made immortal by Australian film Two Hands.

In a twist of lyrical fate, it seems these days former Powderfinger bassist John Collins is bummed out about life in Brisbane’s entertainment district.

Collins said last week the Palaszczuk Government’s very sensible – and still very generous – alcohol management laws, which will result in last drinks being served at 2am, would send us back to the days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Collins’ argument is that an inability for a potentially violent drunk to get a drink at 3am will somehow keep big international music acts away from Brisbane.

With due respect, John, that’s crap. If inner Brisbane earns a reputation for public safety through tougher alcohol laws, bands and patrons alike will flock there in droves.

It’s even more tragic that Collins spoke just prior to yet another innocent young man suffering yet another life-threatening assault in the Fortitude Valley.

As reduced grog trading in Newcastle and Kings Cross has clearly shown, Queensland’s new alcohol laws will dramatically cut street violence.

But it’s Collins’ reference to the Bjelke-Petersen era of the 1970s and ’80s, and his cavalier comparison of Palaszczuk’s Government to those dark and awful days, that really worries me.

In no way – let me repeat, in no way – is Palaszczuk like Joh Bjelke-Petersen. And nor was her LNP predecessor Campbell Newman, whose sins, real or imagined, were nothing like Bjelke-Petersen’s.

If you’re under 40 or moved to Queensland after 1990 you may scoff at my insistence. If so, read the recently released cabinet documents of 1985. Hollywood couldn’t write a script where politicians seriously considered banning gay men from public swimming pools.

Let me assure you: you had to live through the 1980s to know how dark the Sunshine State really was.

To the parliamentary purist, Bjelke-Petersen’s greatest sin was his abuse of the Westminster system. True, he didn’t begin Queensland’s long tradition of ramming legislation through Parliament at midnight. Nor did he invent the so-called “gerrymander” of weighted electorates. That ignominy belongs to Labor.

But Bjelke-Petersen crafted this abuse to an art form. How else could Joh remain premier despite his Country Party winning as little as 20 per cent of the vote? And let’s not forget the notoriously biased Speakers, the refusal to create a public accounts committee, or the shrinking number of days Parliament actually sat.

If you think it absurd that Australian conservative adviser Lynton Crosby should receive a British knighthood – seemingly for getting the Tories elected – then you’ll fall over to learn Bjelke-Petersen received the highest gong, a GCMG, in 1984 for – wait for it – “services to parliamentary democracy”. While debate continues over whether Joh nominated himself, the old joke that Bjelke-Petersen thought “Westminster” a type of carpet never grows old.

Proposed new alcohol management laws are nothing like the Bjelke-Petersen years.

But none of that diminishes Bjelke-Petersen’s attacks on Queensland’s most vulnerable groups. A populist in the most destructive vein, Joh built political momentum not on unity but on division.

By carving Queensland into “us” and “them”, Bjelke-Petersen – for ugly, naked political gain – made public enemies out of the left wing of the Liberal Party, Labor, trade unionists, the gay community, free speech advocates, anti-uranium protesters, indigenous people – anyone who dared to question the decision-making of a man who gladly admitted taking his mandate directly from God.

To oppose Joh was to oppose Queensland. And that meant the full force of the law. Where peace marches interstate were family friendly events, any like gathering in Brisbane was met with brutality. The notorious Queen Street Mall Act made protest illegal, and hundreds were arrested for merely standing outside Parliament House.

Thousands more had Special Branch police files kept on them for “crimes” no greater than writing a letter to a newspaper. Almost certainly I was one of them.

The Triffid’s John Collins, whose comments have trivialised the grim reality of life under Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

That’s why irrational dictatorship is so intolerable. Who can’t but gasp in horror recalling how police raided abortion clinics and seized women’s private medical histories, or how condom vending machines were ripped from Griffith University toilet walls, or how sex education was banned in schools, or how wacky cancer “cures” and dodgy hydrogen cars could receive state endorsement?

Then there’s the midnight destruction of Brisbane’s architectural landmarks, the development-at-all-costs mentality that savaged the natural environment, and the bastardisation of convention that allowed Joh to appoint Albert Patrick Field to the Senate in 1975 to bring down the Whitlam federal government.

Rather than laud Joh as some sort of anti-Labor leviathan, LNP figures today must surely curse his name for damaging, for generations of Queensland voters, the good name of conservatism.

That’s why I pray that, in my dotage, Bjelke-Petersen doesn’t become rehabilitated in some awful revisionist history. We can’t afford Joh to be transformed into a lovable rogue like Labor’s Billy Hughes or, heaven forbid, Ned Kelly.

Let’s put those shameful years behind us — and leave them there.

Paul Williams is a senior humanities lecturer at Griffith University.

Malcolm Turnbull starts 2016 with a hangover after Briggs affair

The Australian

January 2, 2016 12:00AM

Chris Kenny

Associate Editor (National Affairs)

Sydney

Like many revellers, the Turnbull government starts the new year wobbly on its feet, with a 2015 hangover making it hard to focus on the bright lights of the 2016 election year.

Malcolm Turnbull has forced South Australian minister Jamie Briggs to resign in a silly and unfair move, inflaming internal friction and raising standards of ministerial accountability to ridiculous levels.

Photos of the night in question — which I have seen — show Briggs happily posing, and the young diplomat who sparked the inquiry in familiar and informal pose with Briggs’s chief of staff, Stuart Eaton. Yet Briggs has lost his ministerial position for similar informality.

This is not a matter of excusing sexual harassment; no such allegation has been made here. The episode is supposedly about inappropriate behaviour.

Perhaps we should now expect any minister seen in a bar after midnight paying someone a compliment (even in the company of others) or offering a goodbye kiss on the cheek to hand in their commission.

The folly is exposed by what the Prime Minister had to do about Mal Brough. Brough’s role in the so-called Ashbygate affair should have precluded him from the ministry, but as a numbers man for the Turnbull leadership coup his baggage was overlooked.

Once details of the police investigation elevated the issue two months ago it was clear Brough should stand aside, but Brough and Turnbull resisted. So when Turnbull — with input from his deputy, Julie Bishop — decided Briggs had to go, it would have been unsustainable to keep defending Brough.

On the one hand Turnbull tested the limits of ministerial standards by allowing Brough to stay despite a police investigation. On the other, Turnbull has deemed one complaint from a public servant that (even at face value) amounted to no more than a social indiscretion could bring Briggs undone.

No one in the Coalition partyroom misses how Turnbull’s tolerance was extended to a key supporter while a Tony Abbott loyalist was told to walk the plank. Combined with pressure from the Nationals for more ministerial places, the convenience factors for Turnbull worked against Briggs.

Tension between Bishop and Briggs that goes back at least seven years was also a factor ensuring the unintended consequences are unpredictable. To this point Bishop (and others) are privy to details of the claim that Briggs is not.

The cabinet governance committee that ruled on the matter was deeply troubled by the implications of imposing such a hair-trigger standard of accountability and there was a sense the process dictated the outcome. Presented with an independent opinion that guidelines were breached it would be a brave committee that overturned it.

Yet Briggs was not accused or harassing, intimidating or “hitting on” the public servant — just that amorphous “inappropriate” claim.

In matters such as this the process often appears to lean towards guilt unless innocence can be proved. The standard set will be impossible for ministers to live up to. The internal tensions will simmer down or fester — more likely the latter.

It all comes after the disastrous attempted defection of dumped minister Ian Macfarlane. While “Macca” was the architect of his own humiliation, his secretive plot saw Nationals leader Warren Truss conspire against the interests of Turnbull and the Liberals. Truss is expected to retire at the election and so could be replaced soon by his deputy, Barnaby Joyce. If Turnbull and Truss were The Odd Couple, Turnbull and Joyce will be like Blackadder and Baldrick.

A further complication is the imminent release of a NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption report bound to mention cabinet secretary Arthur Sinodinos. As a witness rather than a target, Sinodinos should survive, but given the evidence he’s unlikely to escape criticism, sparking attacks from Labor.

So Turnbull starts the year popular with voters; confronted by internal tension and issues of ministerial standards; challenged by flexing from the Nationals; considering tough policy decisions; requiring a ministerial reshuffle; and needing decisions on election timing and strategy.

If he has made a resolution or two, there is no doubt what they should be: commitments to unity, stability and economic reform. If governments are competent and make the right calls in the national interest — even unpalatable ones — the public generally will reward them. And because that sort of leadership can be unpopular and difficult in the short term, maintaining unity through tough times is paramount.

Turnbull exploited Abbott’s political mistakes and inattention on unity to seize the top job and now must create stability. He is yet to start repairing the budget and reforming the economy. Happily for him the solutions are complementary: the necessary reform tasks — cutting costs, tackling unions and minimising taxes — are the battles that will unify his team.

The big question for 2016 is whether Turnbull will adopt this approach or risk disharmony by taking his party to the Left to please journalists and massage polls. Still, surely while ever the alternative is Bill Shorten and an ALP promising to fix nothing, Turnbull can expect to see in 2017 from the Lodge (where, no doubt, the bar will close as the clock strikes midnight).

Minister Jamie Briggs, the texts and the Stormies night

John Lehmann

The Australian

January 2, 2016 12:00AM

Jamie Briggs’s chief of staff Stuart Eaton and the consular staffer (digitally obscured) in a relaxed scene.

The young woman at the centre of Jamie Briggs’s downfall sent a text message to his chief of staff on the morning after the late Friday night drinks session, saying she was glad the minister had ­“enjoyed the program” in Hong Kong.

It was three days after the now notorious night out that the 26-year-old contacted chief of staff Stuart Eaton again, saying: “When you get a spare second could you please call me … It’s just about Friday night.”

The Weekend Australian has obtained the texts, along with a photograph of the woman with Mr Eaton taken after midnight at the bar, called Stormies, where the ­minister allegedly acted ­inappropriately.

Although Mr Briggs this week accepted his behaviour did not meet ministerial standards, several sources have told The Weekend Australian his forced resignation has left several government ministers concerned that the bar for acceptable conduct has been raised impossibly high.

The woman, whose name The Weekend Australian has not published to protect her privacy, told colleagues in the days after the incident that she did not want to make a formal complaint.

She did, however, make a note of Mr Briggs’s alleged behaviour at the crowded bar, which led to Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Peter Varghese and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop being made aware and an investigator appointed to report on the incident.

Mr Briggs, the then cities minister, Mr Eaton and the woman, a vice-consul at the Australian consulate-general in Hong Kong, are believed to have spent about three hours at Stormies after dining together in the popular Lan Kwai Fong entertainment district on November 27.

At one point, the staffer, a legal graduate on her first overseas posting, complained to Mr Eaton that Mr Briggs was standing too close to her. Mr Eaton suggested she stand next to him, which the staffer did until the night out wrapped up about 2am.

The following morning, Mr Eaton realised he had lost his work phone and texted the consular staffer, using his personal phone, to ask if she had seen it. “Good morning Stuart, I am so sorry to hear you lost your phone!’’ the staffer texted back. “Alas I don’t have it.”

She also thanked Mr Eaton for complimenting the consulate team in his text on its assistance during business meetings with Mr Briggs in Hong Kong the previous day. “I’m glad you and the minister enjoyed the program. I will pass on your message (and phone no!) to the others,’’ she wrote. “Good luck with your phone, have a good day and a safe flight!”

Mr Eaton, who travelled on to London with Mr Briggs, did not hear from the consular staffer again until November 30, when she was at work. After the staffer texted him, saying she wanted to talk “about Friday night”, he called her immediately.

She told him that Mr Briggs had made an “inappropriate” comment to her while at the bar. “She said that she didn’t want to make a complaint but she wanted him to talk to the minister so he didn’t say it again,’’ a source said.

It is understood the investigator’s report said the consular staffer did not want the matter to go further. Mr Eaton, who declined to comment when contacted yesterday, is believed to have informed the investigator of the substance of the texts but was not asked to provide them for examination.

The consular staffer told the investigator Mr Briggs had told her she had “piercing” eyes and had placed his arm around her and kissed her on the neck.

Mr Briggs, a South Australian conservative, has told colleagues he told another person in the bar the staffer had “beautiful eyes”, had only placed his arm around her when posing for a photograph and gave her a goodnight kiss on the cheek. There was no independent witness to the incident.

Mr Briggs had first met the woman that afternoon, as he worked his way through a day of meetings with Hong Kong transport and city officials.

The Australian consul-general to Hong Kong, Paul Tighe, had accompanied the minister to meetings with rail operator MTR general manager Victor Chan, environment undersecretary Christine Loh and transport undersecretary Yau Shing-mu.

The staffer stood in for Mr Tighe at the last meetings of the day with banker HSBC and a government-appointed property group called Energising Kowloon East. When the alleged incident came to light, Mr Varghese had referred it to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which engaged an independent official to investigate.

Malcolm Turnbull, who this week described Mr Briggs’s behaviour as a “serious matter”, expanded the cabinet’s governance subcommittee last month to consider the investigator’s report.

The committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, includes Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, Attorney-General George Brandis and Ms Bishop. Because of the gravity of the matter and concerns that any action taken against Mr Briggs might be seen as vindictive towards a supporter of Tony Abbott, the decision was taken in Mr Turnbull’s office to co-opt more ministers on to the committee.

They included Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison, Michaelia Cash and Arthur Sinodinos. After reading the report, the expanded committee decided that Mr Briggs had to go.

Sources have said the process and outcome have deeply worried some ministers on the committee. Senior government sources have confirmed cabinet governance committee members were concerned about the precedent that would be set by a sacking or resignation over such a borderline incident.

The claim against Mr Briggs did not contain any specific allegation of sexual harassment but rather “inappropriate” attention, but the committee members also recognised there were no sanctions available other than a sacking or resignation.

The process was seen by some to direct the outcome because once the committee was presented with a declaration that ministerial guidelines had been breached, it had little option but to endorse it.