John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement: ‘I don’t think it’s the Australian way to have kids behind razor wire.’ Will the Prime Minister confirm that by 2005 the Howard government had overturned the Hawke and Keating governments’ policy of mandatory detention of children behind razor wire and that there have been no children held in these conditions since that time?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I genuinely thank the member for his question. Can I say to him that I just referred to the 2005 reforms in my last answer to a question from the shadow minister and I respect the role that the member asking the question played in advocating those reforms from the back bench of the then Howard government. I recall attending a meeting with him in regional Victoria at which these questions were discussed. It was obvious to me at the time that he was struggling with these issues in his own mind and that he was desperately concerned, and he went on to advocate a change of policy. He was not the only member who did that. Notably, the then member for Kooyong did and the member for Pearce did, and so did a number of others. I congratulate them on that advocacy.

But this makes the point that the opposition cannot play this both ways. The shadow minister has come into the parliament today and asked a question of me, trying to indicate to the Australian people that somehow yesterday’s announcement was inappropriate and that somehow in making yesterday’s announcement the government is softening on mandatory detention or in some way engaging inappropriately with immigration policy. Yet the member then comes in and asks this question. You cannot have it both ways. The only thing I would ask the opposition to do in the modern age—that is, today—is to honour the words of their shadow minister from 16 October, just three short days ago, when he said ‘we are happy to listen to any proposal from any sphere of politics about how children can be best managed under the Migration Act’, when they come by boat and are then subject to our migration laws. The only thing I am asking the opposition to do is to honour those words of their shadow minister from three days ago. Stop, think, analyse and then determine your position rather than come in here with your three-word slogans thinking that is a solution.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a supplementary question to the Prime Minister—

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear that supplementary questions are to be asked by the person asking the original question on the basis of seeking additional information on the basis of the answer that has been given.

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

The Leader of the House is correct in referring to House of Representatives Practice. I suggest that he read the next edition, because I have ruled on this matter. In other jurisdictions, people other than the original questioner are allowed to ask the follow-up question. As I indicated in my statement in the first week of sittings—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right.

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

I am not sure whether the member for Barker is crawling, but he does not get any special protection. On an interpretation of the agreement that was entered into, I will allow the course of action that is allowed in other jurisdictions. Tomorrow morning I will be making a statement that will indicate fully my attitude towards supplementary questions, but I indicate now that, as long as there is no preamble and the supplementary question relates to matters in the answer, the supplementary question would be in order. And it would be in order for the Leader of the Opposition or his delegate, as mentioned in the agreement, to ask the follow-up question.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Howard government reformed the detention arrangements in 2005, why did the Prime Minister deliberately create a false impression yesterday that children were still behind razor wire?

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

Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Yesterday I had concerns about the structure of the supplementary question, but on the basis that I had not made my statement about supplementary questions I allowed it to go ahead. However, the follow-up question should go directly to matters raised in the minister’s answer. It should not be a follow-up to the original question, and it should not contain argument. On that basis then, I am allowing the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to rephrase his question. It must go directly to matters raised by the Prime Minister in her answer and be without argument.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the question that was asked by my colleague the member for Mallee, and given the Prime Minister’s answer, which referred to changes made by the Howard government in 2005, I ask her by way of supplementary question: why did she create the impression yesterday that there were still children behind razor wire?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is I think he is confused. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition: as he would well recall, having been a senior member of the former Howard government, over the life of the Howard government children were held behind razor wire, and it became an issue within the ranks of the Howard government. It was an issue in this parliament. It was an issue I remember pursuing as shadow minister for immigration, including moving amendments to migration bills which were ultimately defeated in this place on party lines and, perhaps even more significantly than the discussions within and between political parties, it became a major issue in the Australian community—a major issue. As a result of it being a major issue in the Australian community, an issue in this parliament between the political parties and an issue within the Howard government itself, with noted advocates like Petro Georgiou consistently raising the issue, the Howard government determined to change its policy. I am very happy to say that was the appropriate course—the change in 2005.

But I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: he cannot have this all ways. He cannot come into this parliament and be proud of the 2005 changes and chide me for not being sufficiently full of congratulations on them at the same time as saying to the government that what we announced yesterday was inappropriate. He needs to pick one or the other. It will come down to a question of judgment and leadership for the Leader of the Opposition, which he picks. If he chooses to endorse what the government did yesterday on the basis that he says the Howard government did it first, it is fine by me. If instead he chooses to say—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the point of relevance and being required to answer directly, the point of the question which requires a direct answer is: why did you give the implication that you—

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

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her place. The Prime Minister understands her obligation to be directly relevant to the question.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question of children and razor wire is directly relevant to this reform, so I say again to the Leader of the Opposition: if he wants to say, ‘Good on the government, but the Howard government thought of this first,’ that is fine by me. If he wants to say, ‘What the government announced yesterday is wrong and the Howard government was wrong in 2005,’ let’s have the debate. But the one thing he cannot do is say both.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table an article that is in the Herald Sun today headlined ‘Kids go free’—

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

Is leave granted?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

based on the statement of the Prime Minister: ‘I don’t think it’s the Australian way’—

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

The member for Sturt does not have the call. The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.