Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the Prime Minister.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately the following censure motion:That this House censures the Prime Minister for softening Australia’s border protection policies, for denying that his changes have caused a surge in people smuggling, for refusing to take urgent action to address this policy crisis of his own making; and with each boat, another policy failure is exposed, further weakening our nation’s borders.

What we have seen from the Prime Minister today is another desperate attempt to distract attention from his own colossal failure of policy. We have seen an extraordinary failure in policy. It is the government’s stated objective to bring an end to what the Prime Minister has called ‘the vile trade of people smuggling’ and prevent unauthorised maritime arrivals of people smugglers into Australian waters. That is the Prime Minister’s objective, as it was the objective of the previous government—and I have no doubt it would be the objective of any and every Australian government.

The fact of the matter is this: the Howard government took hard decisions to stop the flow of people smugglers—and it worked. In 2001-02 there were 19 boats with 3,039 people. In 2002-03 no boats arrived. Over the next five years there were a total of 18 boats carrying 301 people. On average, 60 asylum seekers arrived by boat each year. Since the government’s changes in policy in August last year, we have seen 43 boats arrive, carrying nearly 2,000 people. Today we saw the Prime Minister confronted with another boat arrival. When his Deputy Prime Minister was the shadow minister for immigration, she used to issue press releases which said ‘Another boat, another policy failure’. By that measure, there have been 43 policy failures since the Rudd government changed the border protection policies of the Howard government. We saw today the Prime Minister’s desperate attempt to distract attention from this matter. The more he bellows and shrieks with his confected outrage, the more he confirms his own failure to protect our borders.

He drew attention to some remarks by the member for O’Connor. Let me say this. I reject any statement which suggests that asylum seekers are, or are likely to be, terrorists—full stop. I made that perfectly clear today. I make no criticism of asylum seekers. I note that the member for O’Connor issued his own statement today in which he said that he did not state that asylum seekers were terrorists. The member for O’Connor and I do not always agree—that is well known. The fact is that the person with control over our borders at the moment is not the member for O’Connor; it is not anyone in the opposition; it is the Prime Minister of Australia, and he seeks constantly to find distractions from his own colossal failure of policy.

We come back to this fundamental point: we have two objectives and we should address them in a calm and measured way, as I did earlier this week in the House—and I was complimented for doing so by the Attorney-General himself. This is no place for hysteria; this is no place for any type of hyperbole. We have a simple factual problem here—the Prime Minister’s policy has failed. The Prime Minister says that the changes to domestic policy, the so-called pull factors, have had absolutely no influence or impact on this huge surge in arrivals—over 2,000 people—since August last year. That is his contention. He pulls statistics out of the air. It is misrepresenting statistics to suggest that there has been an extraordinary increase in the push factors. The fact is that the push factors are enormous. They have always been enormous. There are millions of refugees around the world, each and every one of whom would love to come to Australia. According to the UNHCR, the number of refugees and people in refugee-like situations over the course of 2008 declined by eight per cent, but it is still an extraordinary number and an incredible toll of misery and tragedy. That is the enormous push factor that exists all the time.

And so every Australian government, regardless of its political persuasion, has to try to balance two objectives. One objective is to protect our borders and ensure that there is an end to people smuggling and that we do not have unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers coming into our waters and onto our shores. That is a clear statement of policy. The other objective is to treat asylum seekers humanely and compassionately in accordance with the UN convention on refugees. Balancing those two challenges, those two objectives, is the work of every Australian government.

The challenge for the Rudd government is this: they say that nothing that they have done has affected the flow of refugees. They say there is no pull factor at all. And yet we know, insofar as the enormous push factors are concerned, that the enormous pressure from refugees around the world has changed over the last 12 months. The numbers have, according to the UNHCR’s own report, declined somewhat. I concede that the push factors are enormous and that they will always be enormous. So the question then is a factual one. This is why we should approach this issue in a calm and rational way—not with the hysteria, the character assassination, the venom and the viciousness that the Prime Minister displayed today. Let us simply look at the facts. The push factors are huge today and they will always be huge. They may be somewhat larger in some years, but they are massive. That is a given.

We know from reports, and also from the AFP report that the government is so reluctant to publish, that people smugglers would market recent changes to Australia’s immigration policy to entice potential illegal immigrants. That makes perfect sense. People smugglers are demanding thousands of dollars—this is a large sum even by Australian standards, let alone by the standards of desperate people, whether they come from Afghanistan, Iraq or Sri Lanka—so they have to be able to promise with credibility that they can deliver residency in Australia. So, plainly, that is a marketing tool. On 22 April, Indonesia’s Ambassador to Australia said that he thought the traffickers may use this—that is, the government’s change in policies—as a trial to organise more flows of refugees, because they get more money for it. We saw the UNHCR’s regional representative, Richard Towle, confirming that Australia’s changed immigration policies are a marketing tool for people smugglers. On 16 October, he said:

… I think perceptions of policy can certainly play a role in people smuggling. They have a product that they need to market, and to show that Australia is a place where refugees can get fair and effective refugee protection is something that is understood.

Finally, we have seen in the media so many reports from interviews with asylum seekers themselves. On 24 April an Iraqi refugee in Indonesia told the ABC:

Kevin Rudd—he’s changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different … Maybe accepted but when John Howard, president, Australia, he said come back to Indonesia.

So there is no question that these pull factors have been absolutely critical. The Prime Minister’s policy has failed and no amount of hyperbole, of hysteria, of venom and of vicious personal character attack will distract Australians from the fact that this government’s policy objective of protecting our borders has comprehensively failed.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Another day, another boat, another policy failure. The Labor government’s border protection policy is in tatters. Since Labor changed its border protection system in August 2008, 43 boats—or is it 44 boats, Prime Minister; what is it today: 42, 43, 44 boats?—have been intercepted or arrived on our shores, intercepted by our Australian Navy personnel. Over 2,000 people have now arrived in this way, and the Prime Minister has refused to take any responsibility for the change in the border protection policies which have led to this outcome. The Prime Minister would have Australians believe that it is just an unhappy coincidence and that when he changed the law, when he provided the people smugglers with marketing tools to lure people to Australia, when he changed the laws to play into the hands of the people smugglers, it had no impact—that the surge in boat arrivals in the 14 months since he changed that law was just a coincidence. Well, Prime Minister, it is no coincidence; it is the major cause of the surge in boat arrivals in this country since August 2008.

The Australian Federal Police know it is no coincidence. The Australian Federal Police completed a report in March this year called Strategic Intelligence Forecast—Transnational criminal trends and threats to Australia. That report contains an indication that the government’s changes to border protection policies are going to be marketed by people smugglers to potential asylum seekers. That was a warning from the Australian Federal Police. Yet, unbelievably, the minister will try and tell this House, tell the Australian people, that he does not know anything about the contents of that report. It was a warning to the government that the changes in policies were being used as a marketing tool by people smugglers. Prime Minister, your minister has not even bothered to read that report, yet we hear that the report has been disseminated around the world—to agencies in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada. A Canadian Mounty can read this report, but not the minister! I find that an outrageous state of affairs and a very disgraceful reflection on this government.

The Prime Minister has not directed that this report should be considered by the ministers who are responsible for the border protection policies. Isn’t it a matter of concern that the Australian Federal Police have warned this government that its changes in policies are being used as marketing tools by people smugglers, by the people-smuggling trade that the Prime Minister feigns such outrage about? He calls them ‘vile, outrageous people’, yet his own minister has not even read an Australian Federal Police report that warned the government about the dangers of changing the border protection policies. It is no coincidence, according to the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, who said that people smugglers were using the weakening of the laws as a marketing tool. It is no coincidence, according to the International Organisation for Migration’s chief-of-mission in Indonesia, who said that the people smugglers were ‘testing the envelope’ because of the changes in the border protection laws. The numbers speak for themselves. It is no coincidence, and the government knows it. Yet the Prime Minister thinks that by putting his head in the sand this will all go away, that it will just be a nasty nightmare. It will not go away, Prime Minister—another day, another boat arrival, another policy failure.

The government has also lost control over the immigration detention facilities. Remember when the members opposite called Christmas Island a ‘white elephant’ and said ‘It’ll never be used; it’ll never be needed’? Christmas Island is at breaking point. It is not a question of ‘if’ the government will be bringing asylum seekers onto mainland Australia; it is a question of ‘when’. Christmas Island is having to put up with makeshift accommodation that has been pressed into service. Contractors, staff and supplies are being flown in to deal with the thousands of people who are arriving and being intercepted by Australian authorities. And none of this has been budgeted for, because the Labor government took the border protection policies of the Howard government for granted. They inherited a border protection system which kept our borders safe, which reduced the number of boat arrivals to an average of three per year. In some years there were no boat arrivals. In the 14 months since this government changed the laws, there have been 43 or 44 boat arrivals carrying 2,000 people. Prime Minister, this is an abject policy failure. The Prime Minister must take responsibility for his failure to keep our borders safe. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak in this debate on the suspension of standing orders. I listened very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say before. He said two things in particular. He said, ‘I make no criticism of asylum seekers.’ He went on to say, ‘And we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’I repeat what he said to the parliament and the nation at large. He said, ‘I make no criticism of asylum seekers’ and then he went on to say, ‘And we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’ I am not quite sure what lawyer’s trick the member for Wentworth believes he is playing with this parliament and the people of Australia, but he knows full well that he has unleashed this debate for a base political motive, which is to inculcate a culture of fear in Australia. And he has sat back and encouraged the likes of all those opposite to engage in the most extreme comments possible in order to, first of all, have a debate on this matter; secondly, to bring about fear in the community; and, thirdly, to obtain political advantage from the above. But then the lawyer from central casting, the barrister from Wentworth, says, ‘Oh, I make no criticism of asylum seekers’ and ‘Oh, we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’

All this, of course, was put into absolutely stark contrast earlier today when the member for O’Connor went out and made his most extraordinary statements this morning about asylum seekers. Then, at a quarter to two this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he owned those comments or distanced himself from them. There was stunning and absolute silence as the Leader of the Opposition, completely abandoned of any morally consistent position on this question, simply hoped that he could allow that one to go through to the keeper. It was the old dog-whistle approach of allowing Wilson and the others to go out there to talk it up, while saying, ‘I, the Leader of the Opposition, an innocent party, supporter of asylum seekers and supporter of calm and rational debate have nothing to do with the above.’ And then, mysteriously, an hour and a half later here in the House of Representatives, as this motion was moved, he said something rapidly in passing to the effect of—if I heard it correctly—that he did not approve of certain elements of what the member for O’Connor said.

I am somewhat confused by all this. At a quarter to two he goes out there with the Australian media and is asked a question about whether he stands behind the comments of the member for O’Connor, or whether he repudiates them or whether he will do the right and correct thing, which is to demand that the member for O’Connor be disendorsed as the Liberal candidate for O’Connor. Silence, silence, silence! Then the pressure comes on in the House of Representatives and, whoopsie, we have got to make a correction here in the House. Where has the moral fibre and moral character of the Leader of the Opposition gone? And then there is the consistency in approach of what we have seen with all three Liberal frontbenchers engaged in this debate—the member for Murray, the member for Curtin and the Leader of the Opposition—all politically endangered species. That is what it is about. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition is on borrowed political time. We know that, once there is a leadership change within the opposition, the member for Curtin is next in the gun. And we know that the member for Murray has suddenly hit her straps on this issue, notwithstanding her historical position on certain of these issues. But, suddenly, having done ‘Berowra with pike’ she decided that in fact the smart thing to do was to get with the message and get on with the fear campaign about asylum seekers. So what is the common point here between the member for Murray, the member for Curtin and the member for Wentworth? All fear for their political careers. So what do they do? They shred anything approaching policy principle, they shred anything approaching political consistency and they shred anything in terms of a consistent moral compass on any of these matters.

I say to those opposite that the entire basis for their attack on asylum seekers and the way in which this government responds to this challenge rests on the assumption that their policies were responsible for a reduction in arrivals to Australia and that our policies have been responsible for an increase in arrivals to Australia. They are completely oblivious to all the global facts. The global facts, which they choose to ignore, are that in the period 2001 to 2003, following their introduction of the Pacific solution, we had a radical global decrease in the numbers coming from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka because of global factors operating around the world. All countries experienced a global reduction. What has happened in the period subsequent to that—2007, 2008 and into the present time—is that around the world there has been a global increase in the outflow from Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan, and all countries in the world are experiencing an increase in the number of arrivals coming from those countries.

The third great myth alive in this piece of, shall I say, political self-preservation on the part of the member for Curtin, the member for Murray and the member for Wentworth is to somehow pretend that they have embraced a different policy. So why was it, Member for Murray, that you stood up in such false embrace of the government’s formal change in position when you made those remarks in support of the government’s policy? When asked, ‘Do you support these approaches?’ you said, ‘I do.’ Those opposite pretend that they were not here in the parliament when we decided to change our approach on temporary protection visas. They had an opportunity to register a view in this place and they did not. In other words, their policy on temporary protection visas is the same as the government’s policy since the election of this government. Their policy on the abolition of the Pacific solution is the same as the government’s, as we said we would do in government prior to the election. And I assume they do not want to return children to behind razor wire—or do they? That is one of the other policy positions that we have taken since being in government. But I wait for a clear statement from those opposite. What is the alternative policy? What is that which they seek us to change? Do you hear a clear statement from those opposite?

Government Members:

Government members—No.

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

In other words, factually underpinning this is the global decrease in numbers from 2001 to 2003. That argument blows their entire case out of the water. The global increase in the number of arrivals in 2007 and 2008 blows their argument out of the water in relation to this government. And the conspicuous silence about where they stand on temporary protection visas, the Pacific solution and kids behind razor wire blows that argument out of the water. So what are we left with?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government’s failure. That is what we are left with.

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

We are left with a crude exercise in rank politics on the part of those opposite. I always enjoy it when the principled members for Berowra and Menzies choose to make principled interjections in this debate—because they know a lot about principle!

Can I also say that, when it goes to this debate about numbers, those opposite were referring to arrivals here since this government has come into office. Can I just ask: in the 12 years that the Howard government was in office, how many boats arrived on our shores? Almost 250. How many individuals came with those boats? Almost 15,000. In the period that we have been in office, which is now nearly two years, how many boats have come? Based on our calculation, there have been 38 or 39. And the number of arrivals is around about 1,700. Across the spread of time, the average over the last 14 years has been in the vicinity of 20 boats per year. That will go up and down as the global factors change. But that is the numerical context in which this debate is being conducted. So there collapses the fourth argument advanced by those opposite in terms of the validity of their position on people smugglers.

But at its core this is actually a debate about leadership, character and what you stand for. What we are seeing today on the part of this collapsing moral authority of the Leader of the Opposition is a Leader of the Opposition flailing in the breeze, willing to lurch to the right on these questions in the hope of garnering support within the party room to stagger through until Christmas and, at the same time, engender a debate in this nation which is about asylum seekers as the necessary price to pay to try and preserve one man’s job, and parallel with the tactics employed by the members for Murray and Curtin in a vain attempt to preserve their jobs as well. Why is it that the member for Wentworth, given his historical position on asylum seekers and people smugglers, when he has publicly embraced the position adopted by the member for Kooyong, has turned 180 degrees? It has nothing to do with principle; it has everything to do with expediency. Malcolm Turnbull has the business cards of the leader of a political party but none of its moral authority. That has been on rancid display in this place this week.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who wrote that for you?

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

I say, as he interjects and seeks to make a difference on this matter, his motives are transparent to the Australian people. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.

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

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.