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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his repeated denials that any special deal has been offered to the asylum seekers that were aboard the Oceanic Viking, and I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen Dennis Shanahan’s column in the Australian today which states:

… they have wrung a special deal from the Rudd government.

Or the column of Greg Sheridan, who writes that the Prime Minister must stop:

… telling the most outrageous lies about Australian foreign policy.

Or the column by Paul Kelly, who writes that the Prime Minister:

… seems to think almost any line can be spun and will be believed, even when it is nonsense.

Will the Prime Minister finally stop treating the Australian public like mugs and admit he has used a special deal to entice the asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking?

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

We know when logic has departed, hyperbole arrives. This is a question based upon the observations of a range of journalists for whom we may have individual respect, yet some corporate doubt, but I leave that for those in the gallery to contemplate. I simply say what I have said before: the good thing about our country is freedom of speech. Part of that freedom of speech is having a robust debate, including newspapers like the Australian. The editor of the Australian says he edits a right-wing newspaper. Good on him; he does, and it is part and parcel of the robust debate in this country. I welcome the contributions of all of those individuals. It is part and parcel of the vitality of Australia’s democracy. And we may agree or we may disagree, but every organisation, every media outlet, including that whose editor describes it as a right-wing newspaper—or someone told me a centre-right-wing newspaper; I am told that makes a difference—should be entitled in our great democracy to have their say.

The honourable gentleman’s question goes to the arrangements pertaining to the individuals on this vessel. Again I would draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to the letter of the secretary of the immigration department dated 16 November. The Leader of the Opposition does not like the contents of that letter because it simply refers to the approach which has been adopted in the case of this vessel and those who are on it as being consistent with general resettlement procedures. The special deal sought by those on this vessel was to be brought to Australia for processing. That is what has occurred; the special deal being sought by those on the vessel was to be brought to Australia for processing. From day one those on this vessel have demanded a special deal of being brought to Australia for processing and from day one the Australian government has refused and said they should be processed in Indonesia, and that is what will happen. Our policy is consistent on this.

I say to those opposite: where is your policy? Where is it on border protection? Where is it even on how this individual should be processed? In fact, I have noted some interesting comments on that this morning from the good old shadow minister for immigration—but more of that in question time today.