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

I move:

That this House censures the Prime Minister for losing control of Australia’s borders with badly thought through policy changes that have dramatically increased the number of unauthorised boat arrivals and handed control of our immigration policy to the people smugglers, and in particular for:

(1)

failing to be upfront and honest with this House, and the Australian people, about the nature of the special deal done for the asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking;

(2)

the Prime Minister’s inept handling of the diplomatic relationship with Indonesia; and

(3)

trying to abrogate his responsibility to take charge of this latest border protection crisis by hiding behind a wall of spin, his own staff and the bureaucracy when as he said himself, he is the Prime Minister and the buck stops with him.

Only a moment ago the Prime Minister said that it was so many days since a question had been asked on jobs and so many days since a question had been asked on the economy. I do not know whether that calculation is correct, but the one thing we do know is that it is more than two years since a Prime Minister in this House answered a question straightforwardly on any topic. We have seen the most extraordinary spectacle of a Prime Minister standing up, looking the Australian people in the eye and unblinkingly saying black is white. Here is a situation where, obviously, a special deal was done in order to entice the asylum seekers off the Oceanic Viking. It was a special deal; it has no counterpart. It went to the Border Protection Committee of the cabinet. It went there because it was such a special deal. The Prime Minister says, of course, that he knows nothing about that. He says his staff did not advise him about this deal either before the committee meeting or subsequently. One just has to note how incredible this sounds to us all, given recent comments by Cameron Stewart which I think sum up most people’s views of the Prime Minister—certainly, most of his colleagues’ views. He said:

… he … craves control, which means too often he tries to do everything. He hates to delegate and he is loath to rely on the work of others …

Apparently, on this minor matter of the Oceanic Viking, he became a laid-back, relaxed kind of guy, happy to delegate everything to his staff! If you believe that, you will believe anything. But there it is. The one thing that is beyond question is that the Prime Minister’s claim that there was no special deal has been comprehensively, universally disbelieved. I do not believe there has ever been a statement by a Prime Minister in this House in respect of which nobody is prepared to give agreement or endorsement. We will just work through some of the commentary in the media. We had Dennis Shanahan in the Australian say:

… the … Sri Lankans …will disembark because they have wrung a special deal from the Rudd government.

Greg Sheridan in the same newspaper said:

For some bizarre reason Rudd keeps saying the people on the Oceanic Viking have not got a special deal. This simply defies the ordinary meaning of language and common sense.

Paul Kelly said:

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

But, I am afraid to say, the disbelief extends past that centre-right newspaper with which the Prime Minister is so unhappy at the moment. Tony Wright in the Age says:

There was no special deal for the Sri Lankans, Rudd insisted.

Which, presumably, is why the last of them were content to leave the ship yesterday after refusing to budge for more than a month.

Annabel Crabb in the Sydney Morning Heraldand not many people would say that is a right-wing newspaper—wrote on the 18th:

Against this crowded palette of lunacy, it’s almost possible to overlook lesser offences against human intelligence—such as the Prime Minister’s insistence that the Sri Lankan passengers disembarking the Oceanic Viking have not received any sort of special deal.

Today, the same writer notes:

A Denialist so shameless that he can stare barefacedly back at the electors and his parliamentary opponents and deny, again and again and again, that a bunch of Sri Lankans currently being processed in record-fast time in Indonesia are not in receipt of any ‘special deal’.

The Prime Minister’s spin has not been able to fool anyone, even in his own town. Dennis Atkins wrote in the Courier-Mail today:

The consensus view that the Rudd government provided a special deal for the 76 asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking is now stronger than the much trumpeted world scientific agreement on the causes behind climate change.

Michael Gordon yesterday in the Ageand surely, Prime Minister, that is not a right-wing newspaper—wrote:

The truth is that the group was offered a special deal to leave the boat.

But the disbelief extends even, I am afraid, to the ABC. This reluctance of the Australian media to accept this spin seems to be spreading. Barry Cassidy:

Just to say there is no special deal is silly.

Probably the neatest summary of all of this was in the editorial in the Financial Review today. It said:

Mr Rudd’s refusal to give a straight answer to opposition questions on the asylum issue follows a consistent and unattractive pattern of behaviour.

The Prime Minister’s pattern of behaviour is consistent and it is unattractive, but not simply because it involves saying black is white—saying that no special deal was done when plainly a very, very special deal was done for a very special reason. It is unattractive because it has resulted in the collapse of our border protection policy. The Prime Minister may think he can spin his way out of his problems here in the House, but the real challenge is on our borders. We used to have a border protection policy that sought to achieve—and did achieve—two goals: firstly, the compassionate and fair reception and treatment of refugees in accordance with the UN convention and, secondly, the security of our borders and ensuring that as far as possible people-smuggling was stamped out and there were no unauthorised arrivals. Both of those goals were achieved, and the record is there. From 2002-03 until the change in the border protection policies by this government last year, there was, relative to the current situation, a very, very small number of arrivals—in some years zero and in other years only a few boats. Since those changes we have had 52 boats and over 2,300 arrivals.

How does the Prime Minister defend this? He defends it firstly by denying another fact of life. He defends it by saying that Australia’s border protection policies have absolutely no influence on the number of arrivals. This is as big a denial, as bizarre and absurd a denial, as his denial about the nature of the deal offered to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking. He has been told not simply by the opposition but by the Federal Police, by the International Organisation on Migration, by the Indonesian Ambassador and by the Sri Lankan Ambassador, via the New Zealand immigration minister, that our border protection policies are sending a very strong signal. This is a strong pull factor. Indeed, as the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN only recently said—and it sums it up:

If the pull factors are addressed, attempts to enter Australia will cease.

That is what the Sri Lankan ambassador said, that the Prime Minister will have none of this—they are all wrong. The difference between the government and the opposition on this issue is simply this: when we are in government we stopped the boats. They stopped. We protected our borders. We complied with our international obligations, and our borders were secure. And we have set out clearly the changes we would make to the policies he has instituted that will ensure, once again, that a strong signal is sent to the people smugglers so they can no longer market the absolute certainty of permanent residency in Australia to their customers in return for the large fees they charge—$10,000 to $15,000. We are prepared to undermine their business. We are prepared to undermine the people-smuggling trade and protect our borders. The Prime Minister is not.

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

I second the motion. It is a fundamental duty of this parliament to ensure accountability—accountability of the government, of the executive and of the ministers. This Prime Minister may not like it, but he cannot avoid it. Yet when serious questions are asked in this House of Representatives to hold the government and in particular to hold this Prime Minister to account about his border protection policies, about deals made with other governments in relation to resettlement of asylum seekers, about offers that his government has made to asylum seekers to settle in Australia within record time, this Prime Minister has a duty to at least give a constructive response if not answer the question. Why is it so difficult for this Prime Minister to stand at the dispatch box, look this country in the eye and tell them what is going on in relation to border protection? Why can he not be straight with the Australian people?

The Prime Minister’s behaviour this week in refusing to answer questions—the ducking and weaving, the avoiding and evading—has been bordering on the pathological. The consistent, repeated denial that he offered a special deal to 78 asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking when all of the evidence shows precisely that he did is what we call ‘mythomania’. This is a case study in it. It is a compulsion to, shall we say, embroider the truth. Mythomania means embroider the truth. So we have in our midst a mythomaniac. This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch. You remember the dead parrot sketch where the pet shop owner insists that the very dead parrot is not dead; it is just resting. The very special ‘deal’ is not a special deal; it is just non-extraordinary. This has become comical. If this were not so serious—and it is a serious matter, deserving of serious attention by the Prime Minister—it would be hilarious. In fact, watching him has been hilarious.

This Prime Minister is incapable of answering a straight question—a question on facts, a question asking for a yes or no answer. He gives us these self-indulgent monologues. He reminds us of Fidel Castro, as he stands up there and rants and raves and refuses to answer questions that the Australian people want to know the answers to. All the evidence is against the Prime Minister. All the opinion is against the Prime Minister. There is the case of the letter that he so shamelessly forced a public servant to write to try and justify his outrageous behaviour. There is the fact that a cabinet subcommittee met especially to consider this ‘deal’ that he tries to say is just standard and that everybody in Indonesia gets it. The fact is that he cannot point to one refugee anywhere in the world, let alone in Indonesia, who has been offered a special deal by the Australian government. If there was a standard offer, why wasn’t it made on the first day? Why did we have to wait 31 days or more for the offer to be made? Why didn’t they just get the standard offer—just like everybody else, the Prime Minister says? They could have hopped off the boat, gone ashore and been resettled in four weeks or 12 weeks or whatever fast-track timetable this Prime Minister has offered to the people on board the Oceanic Viking.

There is the department of immigration’s own annual report that says offshore processing for asylum seekers, and that includes those in Indonesia, is running at about 52 weeks—75 per cent have been finalised within 52 weeks. Prime Minister, that is a little different from four to 12 weeks. It is 12 months, not 12 weeks. The Prime Minister’s contempt for the opposition on this is something that we live with. That is the standard he chooses to apply to his position as Prime Minister of the country. But there is the contempt that he shows to the Australian people by refusing to admit that he was involved in this decision to offer the special deal. He said to this parliament that he did not know of it; he did not approve it. That is inconceivable. This is a man who micromanages every issue that crosses his desk. This is a man who is so focused on the polls that he gave 14 interviews in 14 hours. This Prime Minister must be censured for his behaviour. (Time expired)

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

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

Stop gilding the lily! He doesn’t even know when the war in Sri Lanka began.

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

The human rights advocate, the member for Berowra, can never restrain himself. He who boasts his record on these matters, he the architect of kids overboard seeks to make an intervention on these matters. Transiting Malaysia: what we have now for the first time, through the cooperative arrangements between ourselves and Malaysia is criminalisation of people smuggling in that country, operations of interruption of people-smuggling activities, 89 of them with Indonesia, Malaysia and otherwise. There have been some 63 arrests, prosecutions and otherwise convictions of people smugglers. This is the practical business of dealing with border protection, the practical business that we have to deal with day-to-day, as opposed to those opposite whose approach is simply this: (1) no policy; (2) all fear; and, (3) create as much mayhem as you can on the way through.

Those opposite may think that is a responsible way to govern the country. We do not. Our policy on border protection is clear and we will continue to implement it in the future.

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.