Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Curtin and the Leader of the Opposition for the contributions which they have just delivered. One thing about the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion or attempts thereof is the one predictable element to them: it is always a Thursday. It is Thursday, it is censure day. We have had a debate about this issue ranging over various days this week. As the Leader of the Opposition sought to prosecute a particular charge, he would move up to the point of almost launching a censure and, nope, he fell over the edge again. That was on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday but today is Thursday and we need to send away the troops in good cheer. That is what Thursday censure motions are all about and that is what has been applied in these circumstances as well—only added to by the extraordinary eloquence of the member for Curtin—she, who we know, is capable of all manner of original thoughts.

If you are going to launch a suspension motion of the standing orders, it assumes that the other business of the House is less important; therefore, that is what it is about—and we are debating a suspension motion. When it comes to the other matters before the House and the parliament, we are dealing with the challenges of the global economy, we are dealing with jobs for working Australians, we are dealing with the impact of climate change, we are dealing with the extraordinary circumstances which now confront many parts of Australia with extreme weather events, we are dealing with the rollout of the education revolution, we are dealing with the broader challenges of infrastructure and we are dealing with the broader challenges of nation building. On all these matters, we have seen a pattern of behaviour by those opposite whereby they do not wish to engage in the mainstream policy debates of the nation. Jobs for working Australians are unimportant. If they were important, you would think that we would have had a question on that within the last 97 days. On the economy more broadly, given that we are wrestling with the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, you would think that it would have been worthy of a question within the last 30 days. Given that we have currently got legislation before the parliament on climate change and we have a Copenhagen conference looming on a global deal within only a few short weeks, you would think that somehow within the last 30 days it might be worthy of question or two—no. No questions have been coming forward on any of these matters, which go to the concerns of working Australians everywhere.

The opposition say that these debates are much more central than the concerns of working families and working Australians everywhere. I think that would be a very interesting question to be debated by those, whom I know various members of this House are dealing with, who are losing their jobs today. There are those across the country who are having difficulty getting a quality education. There are also those across the country who are having great challenges when it comes to: ‘How do I deal with my banks and the availability of credit to me in my small business and how do I keep it going? How do I access the infrastructure packages which the government is unfolding across the country? How do I keep my small business going? How do I wrestle with all these challenges and with getting proper access to health care?’ We saw reports on that in today’s national newspapers. These are all the challenges that the government is engaged in day in, day out and week in, week out for working Australians everywhere. Our priorities are working Australians and dealing with the great challenges of today and preparing for the great challenges of tomorrow. That is what our mission is, and we intend to stick with that mission. It is what we were elected to do and that is what we will continue to prosecute. I suggest that those opposite reflect for a moment on their sense of national priorities concerning these real challenges for working Australians.

The other thing about a suspension motion which seeks to create a censure motion is that it is supposed to be about, ‘The government is doing X wrong and we, the opposition, would do Y instead.’ That is what a censure motion is about. I look at this censure motion and see that it has nothing to do with any of that. The reason it has nothing to do with any of that and why they are so engaged with this debate right now is that they have no policy. It is so easy to go out there and whip up a fear campaign about asylum seekers. That is what it is about. We had the good old member for Farrer out there today whipping it up, from time to time the ‘member for worry’ out there whipping it up, various other members from those opposite, inside and outside the chamber, whipping it up—good old fear, good old scare, the No. 1 and No. 2 strategies of the Liberal Party.

Let us look at what actually happens in the general national policy debate. What is the common denominator across all the big exchanges on policy we have here? On the national stimulus strategy and the debt and deficit necessary to underpin it, no alternative, just a fear campaign. Look at climate change. Instead of acting for the future, what do they run? A fear campaign about the impact on jobs now. On every other matter, whether it is concerning the future of the education revolution, whether it is the future of infrastructure or the future of health, we have instead a campaign and so, too, do we have a fear campaign here as well.

What is a fear campaign? It is designed to animate people’s emotions as a substitute for any clear policy alternative. They do not want to have a policy on what debt and deficit they would sustain in order to underpin a stimulus strategy. Do you know why? Because they do not want to have a small target strategy; they want to have a zero target strategy. They want a zero target strategy also when it comes to border protection because they are aware of the different views which exist within their own side of politics.

Therefore, you go to the substance of what they then say—and I listened carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition’s charges were before—and the Leader of the Opposition said their policy was a smashing success. The policy that they pursued in office saw nearly 250 boats arrive carrying almost 15,000 people over a period of time. That is their definition of success. They say that the temporary protection visas were a measure of success, the same temporary protection visas which resulted in 90 per cent of those holding them being resettled in Australia.

On top of that again we were told that the Pacific solution was a success—60 per cent of whom were granted permanent residence in Australia. We were also told somehow, by implication I suppose, that kids behind razor wire was some sort of badge of success. Even they started feeling shamed by that towards the bitter end but that was part and parcel of their approach to this.

Then of course we have the prophetess of doom and gloom on international relations, the good old member for Curtin. She has predicated the demise of the following sets of bilateral relationships: (1) that our relationship with Japan was about to implode—our exports to Japan I think went up 25 per cent last year, although I stand to be corrected; (2) our relationship with China was about to implode—exports there went up about 20 per cent last year, apart from the fact that we have been meeting recently with the President, the Premier and other members of the standing committee of the polit bureau and others, but these are all of passing no consequence. I will mention in passing for the member for Curtin—the champion of Chinese human rights, she who walked very elegantly, inelegantly, on both sides of the street on that one—the China relationship has not actually imploded. Then we are supposed to see the collapse of our relationship with the United States—remember that one?—over the G20. Well, I cannot see a lot of evidence of that happening. But the latest one to enter the scene here is our relationship with Indonesia. That forms part of the motion we have before us, upon which this suspension motion is now based. Our relationship with Indonesia is in such absolute disrepair that it has resulted in multiple disruptions of people-smuggling events across the archipelago, as it does today and into the future.

These are the facts which underpin their failed policy approach of the past, which is why the Leader of the Opposition, cobbling together slowly but surely some coalition to keep Joe Hockey at bay up there in terms of the leadership stakes, is running a four-week-long fear campaign on asylum seekers, hoping to mask the divisions on their side on climate change. That is what it is all about.

Then you go to the direct consequences of the challenge we have had to deal with as the government of Australia. No. 1 challenge, a civil war in Sri Lanka, with 260,000 internally displaced people. How do you therefore deal with that practical challenge as any government in the region? In response to that, the foreign minister has visited Colombo recently and is working with the World Bank on a humanitarian stabilisation program in that country. No. 2, transit arrangements with Malaysia and Indonesia.

See this speech in context