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

I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That this House suspend proceedings forthwith so that the Prime Minister can stand before the Parliament and explain why:

(1) the Prime Minister refuses to consider an offshore detention centre in Nauru because, as she said in an interview on 8 July 2010, “I would rule out anywhere that is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention” yet now plans to send asylum seekers to Malaysia who hasn’t signed it either;

(2) the Prime Minister decried the use of Manus Island and the Howard Government’s so called “Pacific Solution” as “costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle” in 2003 yet is now desperately negotiating with the PNG Government to re-open Manus Island;

(3) the Prime Minister has damaged our national interest by agreeing to a deal with Malaysia that will see us accept five of their refugees for every one of the asylum seekers we send to them – with Australian taxpayers footing the complete bill;

(4) the Government allowed three people, identified by the NT Coroner as responsible for the fire aboard the people smuggling boat, SIEV36 which killed five people and injured 40, to be granted permanent residency in Australia;

(5) it took only three hours for the NSW police to remove protestors from the roof of the Immigration Minister’s office yet no action was taken against protestors on the roof of Villawood for 11 days;

(6) rioters at Christmas Island faced no penalty for burning down buildings and risking the lives of people at the facility;

(7) the Prime Minister promised an East Timor solution before the election knowing very well that it was opposed by the Government of East Timor and was nothing more than a dishonest election smokescreen; and

(8) the Prime Minister doesn’t just come clean and reinstate the Howard Government policies that worked rather than try to maintain this elaborate fiction that Labor has a plan to stop the boats.

This is a tragedy for our country. The Howard government found a problem and created a solution. The current government has taken that solution and turned it into a tragedy for this country, for our region and for the boat people themselves. The Prime Minister might turn her back on me, but she should not turn her back on this problem, which is of her making. She should turn around and face this problem, not try to shuffle it off to Malaysia, which she is trying to do right now.

This is a very serious problem, and it is not helped by sanctimony and self-righteousness of the type that this Prime Minister has shown in question time today. Since she became the Prime Minister, we have seen more people than ever coming illegally by boat. We have seen further suffering and, I regret to say, further deaths and all this Prime Minister can do is come in here and engage in the kind of sanctimony and self-righteousness that we saw from her earlier today. We do not want sanctimony, Prime Minister; we want solutions. That is what we want, and that is what we are not getting from this government.

Let us be clear on how the Howard government stopped the boats. We stopped the boats with Nauru, with Manus, with temporary protection visas and with a willingness to turn boats around where it was safe to do so. I call on the Prime Minister to swallow her pride, to end this stubborn refusal to do what works and to pick up the phone to the President of Nauru and reopen the centre there. Since this Prime Minister has come to office, we have had almost three boats a week—that is, three boatloads of suffering humanity, three boatloads of people exposed to death on the high seas because of the policies of this government.

This is a problem that is going from bad to worse, and it is going from bad to worse because of the incompetence and the untrustworthiness of this government and in particular this Prime Minister. Let us remember back to that day, 24 June, when the Prime Minister made her 'the government has lost its way' speech. I say to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: do you remember that day when the Prime Minister said that the government had lost its way? He is pretending to have a conversation with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, but he is marking every single word of mine. This Prime Minister said that the government had lost its way and that one of the things she was going to fix was the boat people problem. How did she fix this? She fixed it by promising before the election an East Timor detention centre that she had not even bothered to pick up the phone to the President of East Timor about. What incompetence, what ineptitude and, in the end, what absolute deceit of the Australian people on the eve of an election.

We now know that the East Timor detention centre has sunk without trace somewhere in the East Timor Sea, as it always was going to. It was yet another example of the incompetence and the untrustworthiness of this weak and indecisive Prime Minister. But it just goes from bad to worse. This Prime Minister has the Midas touch in reverse when it comes to public policy. Late last week she rushed out into the media—or had her briefers rush out into the media—to say, 'We have an answer: it's Manus Island.' That was the answer. This is the same Prime Minister who had said of the Howard government's Manus and Nauru detention centres that they were 'costly, unsustainable and wrong in principle'.

The Prime Minister is carefully studying her notes and pretending to write on a piece of paper. What she is writing is, 'What the hell do I say now? How do I answer this?' How do you answer it, Prime Minister? How could something that was costly, unsustainable and wrong in principle be wrong for the Howard government and right for her? It is simply impossible to justify, other than by concluding that this is a Prime Minister utterly without conviction or consistency.' But it gets worse. The Manus solution was unravelling within 24 hours of its announcement. And so at three o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, the week before the budget, she rushes out into the prime ministerial courtyard to say, 'We've got another plan. Manus isn't working; we've got a new plan. It's great! We are going to send one of ours to Malaysia and they're going to send us five of theirs!' A great deal for Malaysia; a terrible deal for Australia.

The Prime Minister thinks that, because the member for Cook thought a one-for-one swap might not be a bad deal, one for five must be even better. Really and truly: she is some negotiator! It originally started at one for one, then it became one for two and finally she settled on one for five. The longer she talks, the worse it gets—and we pay for every single one of them with borrowed money.

Not only is this against our national interest but it is hypocritical. Remember the reason the Prime Minister gave for not being able to pick up the phone to the President of Nauru? That Nauru has not signed the UN convention. I have news for the Prime Minister: Malaysia has not signed the UN convention either. Doodle something on your notes, Prime Minister! How do you answer that one? That cannot be answered either.

Finally, let me make this point: it simply won't work. It is absolutely crystal clear that Malaysia are not going to accept any 800 people. They are going to decide the 800 that come to their country and the circumstances under which they come, and they are going to leave the ones they don't like here in Australia, waiting to be dealt with by this Prime Minister. The other point I make is that plainly she is not going to send women and children back, which just gives the people smugglers another product to sell. It is weak and indecisive, from a bad government getting worse.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. After selling the Nine Network to Alan Bond for a billion dollars and buying it back three years later for a quarter of that price, Kerry Packer once famously said, 'You only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime.' Well, Malaysia only gets one Julia Gillard. The great negotiator must explain to this House why she was completely rolled by the Malaysian government, who clearly saw this desperate Prime Minister coming—selling out Australia's interest in a fit of panic and desperation, as her government has lurched from crisis to crisis on our borders and in our detention centres.

Under the Prime Minister's panicked deal—five-for-one refugee swap—as the Leader of the Opposition said, we will send 800 to Malaysia at a cost of $95,000 each. We will pay for the privilege of taking back 4,000 at $54,000 each. These will be added to our existing program of refugee and humanitarian entrants, a program which is strongly supported by this side of the House, and the settlement services that support it. But it is a program under which, at its current level of intake, after five years one in three have a job and more than 80 per cent are still on welfare—and they want to add another 4,000 to the government funded program.

The other point is that on the weekend the Prime Minister said: 'It is 800 to be used as we want to use them.' Well, it is clear from today's reports that she did not read the fine detail, because clearly Malaysia, at the end of the day, will veto who gets to come to Malaysia—and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, not just who gets sent to their country, not just the circumstances in which they get sent, but how much the Australian taxpayers are going to pay for that privilege. The only big winner tonight from this government's federal budget will be the Malaysian government. They are the big winners. They are the ones who have secured the big deal out of this government with this five-for-one refugee swap.

On this deal, this Prime Minister needs to explain many things, because this deal just has not landed yet. Like all of the other things we have heard them bring into this place, the detail just never comes. And when it finally gets trawled over, the whole thing just unravels. We still do not know, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition put to the Prime Minister today, whether children will be returned under this deal. No answer today. Who will monitor the welfare of the 800 returned to Malaysia and how, and who will pay for this monitoring? How will they ensure that those sent back to Malaysia do not find their way back into the people smugglers' queue and on another boat back to Australia? How will they be sent to Malaysia? The minister said on the weekend that it is an operational decision whether they will be sent by boat or by plane. Has the government got a firm commitment out of Malaysia that we will not have a repeat of the Oceanic Vikingdebacle, when people refused to get off the boat and the former Prime Minister cut a special deal with those asylum seekers on that boat that we all remember too well—and that, frankly, amongst other poor decisions of this government, set this whole crisis into the making?

This is a stopgap measure. It is a one-off desperate deal, a bilateral deal with one country, good for a dozen boats and then it is back to business as usual under this government—business as usual under which 224 boats arrived on their watch, business as usual under which over 11,000 people can turn up. We have 6,800 people in detention; half of them have been there for more than six months, and that includes a thousand children under this government's policies. That is their record.

What we have seen from this government is a series of bad decisions. This is just the latest. The first one, we will remember, was the asylum freeze, which this Prime Minister described at the time as being a deal in the national interest. It resulted in 58 more boats coming, carrying 2,800 more people. It resulted in a doubling of the number of people in detention and a tripling of the processing time, which I am sure has played a significant role in the riots we have seen.

Then there was the never-ever East Timor processing centre, the other great solution to this problem. Now we have the Malaysian people-go-round. This is a government that does not have the policy, that does not have the resolve and that does not have the necessary ticker to deal with this issue. 'Ticker' means strong decisions. You have the policies in front of you from the opposition; it is time to implement them. (Time expired)

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

I rise to reject this proposed suspension of standing orders moved today by the Leader of the Opposition. I state to the House that today we have made a little bit of history, because today is the budget day. Today is the day when, for every year since Federation, the opposition have come into this chamber and raised questions about the macro economy; they have raised questions about employment settings; they have raised questions about spending; they have raised questions about revenue; and they have raised questions about the fiscal state of the economy. But we have seen today for the first time in our history an opposition come into this chamber on budget day and not ask a single question about the economy. They have abandoned the debate about the economic future of this nation, and it is not surprising, because essentially they have nothing to say about the future of this country. They regard the economy as something boring. How do we know that? Because Peter Costello in his book nailed the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the Leader of the Opposition was—

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

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

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

Reluctantly, Mr Speaker. I would imagine that this is way outside the standing orders. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the suspension and it has nothing to do with why it is urgent.

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

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will take a little bit of time and I apologise to the Leader of the House. I can tell you that this is the last suspension of standing and sessional orders where I will allow the purpose of that suspension to be the debate. From now on I will draw both the proposer and the seconder back. On that basis, that is why the Leader of the House is in order.

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

Hypocrisy, thy name is Abbott!

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order!

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

They come in here and they refuse to debate the economy. They come in here and every day at 10 minutes to three they move a suspension, because this is the first opposition that have chosen not to even try to hold the executive to account. That is the purpose of question time. The purpose is to come in here and ask questions of the executive about the functioning of the government. But those opposite have given up on that. Perhaps Play School was not on today, because the Leader of the Opposition was 10 minutes late in his motion for suspension. And they are not fair dinkum, because they did not even ask for leave to move a motion. They just went straight to the moving of a suspension and, then, between the mover and the seconder of the motion, neither of them addressed why the suspension should occur.

There are two fundamental reasons that the suspension should not occur. The first is that today is budget day. Today is the day when Australians want to know about the economic future of this country. They want to know about employment settings and they want to know about how the economy will be set for this year and years into the future. They want to debate those issues.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

The member for Cook.

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

The second reason it should be rejected is that the member for Cook has lodged an MPI about this very issue. So, straight after question time today we will have a debate on this issue and the member for Cook will have 15 minutes to add to his five minutes and the minister will be responding to that MPI debate.

But those opposite will do anything rather than debate the economic future of this country. And it is not surprising, as we know from last year's budget reply, where they handballed off the costings of their budget response from the Leader of the Opposition to the shadow Treasurer to the shadow finance minister and to that great moment with the staffer. I wonder if that staffer is still around. I suspect that might be one fewer person employed by the those opposite after that event.

The Leader of the Opposition has a big challenge on Thursday night, which is to actually put forward an alternative strategy on the economy—put it forward without the $11 billion black hole that was in their costings during the election campaign. It is extraordinary. They oppose all of the savings measures made by those on this side of the House. They did everything they could to stop savings measures in the area of health to create space for the reform of the program and the national reform of health undertaken under the leadership of the minister for health. They did everything possible to block that, but at the same time they go around the country and make promise after promise. Barely anyone on their back bench has not made a promise in my portfolio of transport, from a local road to a local railway line. But they never actually say where the money will come from.

Their fiscal credibility was blown apart after the election, and today's performance in question time and in moving this suspension shows that they have learnt absolutely nothing when it comes to dealing with the economic future of this country. Indeed, when the government put forward our economic stimulus plan two years ago in the 2009 budget, the Leader of the Opposition said:

I think what we are going to get is massive debt and a deep recession.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:

It will certainly not ward off recession.

The fact is that our economic management of this country did prevent a recession. It did help to create 500,000 jobs. We have an unemployment rate in this country with a four in front of it—the envy of the industrialised world. We are continuing to build the infrastructure that the economy needs to run faster and smarter. Tonight's budget will see the Treasurer continue with that good and sound economic management to deliver for the Australian public. Thursday night is the time for the Leader of the Opposition to put his money where his mouth is. They have gone round the country making promises about the inland rail line, the Pacific Highway, the Bruce Highway—it goes on and on. Will they deliver this on Thursday night? We know that last time there was an $11 billion black hole. We have to see from the opposition leader serious, credible and properly costed proposals in the budget reply on Thursday.

Let us take just one issue that has been the subject of some debate in today's newspapers: the issue of the provision of support for pensioners to deal with the transfer to digital TV.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are against that.

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

The minister says that they are against that. Actually, the member for Mayo had this to say on 25 May 2009 in this House when speaking on legislation:

It is right that the government does help Australians, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale, to switch over to digital TV.

Indeed, Senator Minchin, the mentor of the Leader of the Opposition—or one of them—had this to say in the Senate on 18 June 2009:

The coalition supports this amendment ...

For eligible households in Mildura, such as pensioners, this measure will provide some certainty about their capacity to access and utilise the equipment needed to view a digital picture.

But on Sunday when asked about the government actually doing something about it, the shadow Treasurer said, 'We wouldn't be spending so much money.' Does that sound familiar? We can go back to the comments by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. They were talking about us having a transfer agreement, but when it is actually real and happening it suddenly becomes bad and so they oppose. They are caught up in that.

One thing that I learnt growing up in a household with an invalid pensioner as a mum—one thing that was taught to me every budget day and every day of my life—is that it is only Labor that looks after pensioners and low-income earners, and we will see that again because those over there are only interested in looking after the entrenchment of privilege. Those opposite continue to oppose the sort of reform that has seen our economy looked after in the interests of all Australians. Question put:

That the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

The House divided. [15.29]

Question negatived.

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

In the absence of the opposition having any question on the economy, jobs, health or education, I ask that further questions be placed on Notice Paper