Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday Senator Vanstone greeted a report on the wrongful detention of Australian kids with the claim: ‘It was a good day for the government’? Is the Prime Minister also aware that on The 7.30 Report last night Senator Vanstone dodged responsibility for mismanagement of the Immigration portfolio no less than six times by blaming previous governments, ministers and the media? Does the Prime Minister accept any responsibilities for this: Cornelia Rau, Vivienne Alvarez and the other cases of wrongful detention?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in the nature of Australian politics, as it should be, that the head of government ultimately is accountable for the overall performance of the government. I have never sought to evade that responsibility. What is more, on three occasions since the initial election in March 1996, which was in part at least a judgement on the performance of the former government, the Australian people have made a judgement. And when the election is next held they will have an opportunity to make a judgement about this government and also about the performance of the alternative government.

I did not have the opportunity of seeing Senator Vanstone on The 7.30 Report but I am told that her performance took its customary feisty style. I want to say that I greatly respect the doggedness, the sagacity and the energy of Senator Vanstone. But you have asked me a question really about the Ombudsman’s report, because what triggered all of this was the report of the Ombudsman, Professor McMillan. I am rather glad the member for Swan has asked me this because later in the evening, after I had the opportunity of having a bit of social discourse with my colleagues on the government front bench, I was still perfectly able and ready to watch Lateline. It is my wont to watch Lateline quite a bit. I often see my colleagues on Lateline and they perform very well; the foreign minister, for example, is a regular appearer on Lateline.

There was one very, very interesting comment that was made by Professor McMillan when he was interviewed, and it rather blows out of the water everything that the opposition has been saying about the government in relation to this matter. He had this to say:

There was no evidence in the cases that I’ve examined of any political pressure that led to deficient decisions.

Here is the independent man, the person appointed as the keeper of the public interest. And bear in mind that all of these cases were referred to him by the minister, arising out of the Palmer inquiry. We send them all off to the Ombudsman, he has a look at them and he says, contrary to what the opposition—

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. We are asking for responsibility to be taken by the Prime Minister.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Swan will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is in order. I call the honourable the Prime Minister.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Professor McMillan was asked by Senator Vanstone, the woman whose reputation and performance you have tried to traduce—that is what you have tried to do—and he makes the cardinal central point:

There was no evidence in any of the cases that I’ve examined of any political pressure that led to deficient decisions.

In other words, on the whole argument the Leader of the Opposition and others have been running these past days, and that is that it was the rotten political policy of the government that produced all of these things, he said: not right.