Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House censures the Prime Minister for leading a chaotic Government in which the:

(1) Minister for Foreign Affairs having flatly denied that the Government had paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats refused to answer questions today on the same matter, citing intelligence, security and operational matters;

(2) Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are disagreeing with each other as to whether the Government paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats; and

(3) Government is providing a cash incentive for criminal people smugglers to make voyages to Australia by failing to deny reports that criminal people smugglers could be paid $30,000 US dollars if they can make it to an Australian vessel.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the House censures the Prime Minister for leading a chaotic Government in which the:

(1) Minister for Foreign Affairs having flatly denied that the Government had paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats refused to answer questions today on the same matter, citing intelligence, security and operational matters;

(2) Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are disagreeing with each other as to whether the Government paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats; and

(3) Government is providing a cash incentive for criminal people smugglers to make voyages to Australia by failing to deny reports that criminal people smugglers could be paid $30,000 US dollars if they can make it to an Australian vessel.

We have no choice but to suspend standing orders when we have a situation where that man is physically incapable of answering a question, and it is a question that matters because it is a question with an answer that ricochets around the networks in Indonesia, an answer that either shuts down an incentive—the way some of his fellow ministers have tried to do—or else allows a story to fester that somehow there has been a shift of late, and now people who have been described by both sides of politics in the worst possible terms may well be able to get Australian taxpayers' money to keep people on a leaky boat.

Australian taxpayers have a right to know where their money is spent. Australian taxpayers have a right to know in particular if their money is going to the most vile trade that both sides of this chamber have made the strongest comments against. Both sides have made the strongest comments against it.

Honourable members interjecting—

I hear the shouting from those opposite, who do not want to suspend standing orders. They do not want a debate that might draw in what they did in Malaysia. They do not want a debate that might draw together the decisions that they made when they voted with the Greens, because, every time they cite the number of drownings, they neglect to reflect on the fact that about half of them occurred—about half of those lives were lost—after they had decided to be part of the blocking of the arrangement with Malaysia. Those opposite do not want an honest debate on this. No wonder the slogans do not make it past three words. No wonder they do not want their own record of how they behaved in opposition to be exposed in any way.

But now we have a new measure, where the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was last week prepared to give an answer in a way that the Prime Minister is not. Admittedly, he was willing to use the vocabulary that the Prime Minister was previously committed to. His answer was the word 'no'. But when asked directly at a media conference on Tuesday whether officials had recently paid the crew and captain of a boat carrying asylum seekers to take them from Australia—whether or not Australian taxpayers' money had been handed over to these people—the immigration minister was willing to shut down the story straightaway and say no.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs was willing, when asked by a journalist, 'Do Australian authorities pay the captain and crew of people-smuggling boats to turn them back to Indonesia?'—the foreign minister back then was willing—to answer, 'No.' And the Attorney-General, in the Senate today, has been willing to make similar comments. But, as long as the Prime Minister of this country refuses to shut it down, stories of incentives around Indonesia will continue to run, and Australian taxpayers will quite rightly ask: where on earth is their money being handed over to by Australian officials?

We had the bizarre situation—and this is why we need to stop question time and have a serious debate—where the foreign minister, when asked whether or not she answered honestly last week, said:

I can inform the House I will not comment on intelligence, security or operational matters.

I have to say: other people will be commenting on intelligence after a comment like that, because what the foreign minister is doing is saying by her answer today that she stepped out of line last week. If her answer to the parliament today is in any way accurate, then the immigration minister gave intelligence information in front of television cameras. If the foreign minister's answer today is at all accurate, then she herself, in front of the media, provided answers that were actually meant to be classified. They cannot have it both ways. Bizarrely, of all the different concepts within the parliament, here is one where they reckon parliamentary privilege means that you are allowed to say less inside this room than you are allowed to say outside it—that somehow you must not say it in the parliament, you must not let it get into those Hansard records; just say it in front of a TV camera! That is the right approach! And that is the approach that those opposite have chosen to take.

If the foreign minister's answer today is in any way accurate, then last week we saw a gross level of irresponsibility from those opposite. But, if the answers they gave last week were in any way accurate, what we are seeing now is appalling behaviour from the Prime Minister of this country. Three of the members of his own cabinet, all of whom would attend meetings of the National Security Committee, have been willing to give answers, and yet the Prime Minister is not willing to provide the same sort of information. We have a situation where we have no choice but to set aside the ordinary debate of parliament, because this is not simply some mistake that someone might have made at a media conference. This is something that this Prime Minister has claimed is an absolute cornerstone of his prime ministership, and yet he will not let people know if he has done exactly what he used to rail against. He has said:

If you pay a people-smuggler, … that's doing the wrong thing, not the right thing, and we shouldn't encourage it.

I have to say: US$30,000 would count as an encouragement. If they are serious at all when they talk about the drownings argument being something significant, then you do not pay people to keep them on a leaky boat. You do not pay people to keep them in a situation where every other piece of rhetoric has said that that would put their lives at risk.

This parliament has to be able to have a situation where we can ask a question and get something approaching an answer, because—let us not forget—these are hardly questions of difficult detail. We asked the immigration minister, 'Immigration Minister, do you agree with yourself?' and he did not know how to answer. We asked the foreign minister, 'Foreign Minister, do you agree with yourself?' and she said, 'I mustn't answer that.' What we have across there is a government that is in absolute chaos. They have leaks from their National Security Committee. They now have leaks from their own question time briefs appearing online today. We now have a situation where they cannot hold the line even within the ranks of their own National Security Committee.

This is a situation where this parliament must shut down question time and have an open debate, because the Prime Minister will not be able to respond to this resolution with a three-word slogan, but it could do with a one-word answer. A one-word answer will settle this—a one-word answer that Australian taxpayers have a right to know. Everyone who is an Australian taxpayer, even if they have to put up with a Treasurer who is not up to it, at least has a right to know whether or not Australian officials have been authorised to act in this way and whether or not people smugglers are now going to wonder, if they make the voyage and start on their pathway, whether they have a choice where either they get turned back, in which case they can get the $30,000, or they make it through. It is a no-lose situation, and if it is not happening a simple answer from the Prime Minister would shut it down well. It is a prime ministerial answer he used to be completely capable of giving. Who would have thought that this bloke would get to the point where he could not anymore say the word 'no'?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. Last Tuesday we had a remarkable allegation surface: that Australian officials had paid people smugglers to take people back to Indonesia. In this area of policy, there are often some pretty amazing claims that are made out there. We tend to take them with a grain of salt, and the idea that our government would be paying people smugglers to take people back to Indonesia certainly ranked amongst those proposals which would seem to be utterly outlandish. So, not surprisingly, when the question is put to the immigration minister, he answers, 'No, never happened—nothing to see here,' and when the proposition is put to the foreign minister she reiterates it: 'No, it never happened—nothing to see here.' I have to say that personally I heard what they said and I thought, 'Well, that's obviously got to be right, because which Australian government would pay people smugglers who turn up next to an Australian Navy Vessel to take people back to Indonesia?'

But then we see an absolutely astounding interview conducted by the Prime Minister with Neil Mitchell on Friday where, when these allegations were put to the Prime Minister, rather than repeating the flat denial, what we hear is obfuscation. What we hear is an attempt to avoid the question and then this fantastic line which sums up everything that this government is about: 'By hook or by crook, we will do what we intend to do—by hook or by crook.' This is the government of the cheap fix. This is the government that goes down the quickest avenue it can. This is the government that does not have enduring solutions. Why on earth would he make a comment like that? We obviously expected that later that day he would clean up those comments, he would do his press conference and he would assure the Australian people: 'No, it ain't so. There is no way that an Australian government would have paid people smugglers to take people back to Indonesia.' But instead he confirms it all.

So where does that leave us? That leaves us with the Prime Minister inviting the Australian people to absolutely accept the proposition that that is exactly what happened—that the Australian government has paid wads of cash to people smugglers who turn up next to an Australian Navy vessel. Parties of both sides have been working over the last few years to do everything we can to—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is true: to try and do everything we can to reduce the model for people smugglers. Yet what we have here is a government which, rather than putting people smugglers out of business, has gone about and created a new business for people smugglers: 'If you come along and draw up beside an Australian Navy vessel then there's half a chance that you're going to get a wad of cash paid by the Australian taxpayers.' Is that the way to go about it? Is that the way the former immigration minister would think that this should be handled?

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this has now left the government with a situation where the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is refusing to rule this out and has invited the Australian people to believe that this is exactly what has happened. He has left his immigration minister and his foreign minister absolutely high and dry. We are in a situation now where this is actually what has occurred. When the immigration minister was asked to begin with whether or not people smugglers have been paid to take people back to Indonesia and denied it, at that point the minister not only has an issue with policy but has a personal issue in terms of his ministerial role, as does the foreign minister.

What we have seen today we did not see back then. We did not see any avoidance of this issue on the basis of it being an intelligence matter or an operational matter. We just saw back then a flat denial that this happened, and now we have them running away from it. So what we have is the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Minister for Foreign Affairs left high and dry by this Prime Minister, and what we now need to hear from the Prime Minister is a clear statement of clarity about whether or not people smugglers were paid to take people back to Indonesia, because otherwise he is leaving out there the kind of inducement for people smugglers to get on the water and to turn up next to an Australian Navy vessel. What he has also done is leave his ministers high and dry with a whole lot of explaining to do.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, on a point of order under standing order 65, during the previous two speeches there were non-stop interjections in breach of standing orders. You have already taken action against the member for Newcastle. Is it fair game on this bloke, as it was on the two previous speakers?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. The member for Newcastle was warned that she was not sitting in her seat and therefore, under the standing orders, is not permitted to interject. I think there was a fair amount of interjection from both sides of the House.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Corio, the previous member, asked for a clear statement. Here is a clear statement: we stopped the boats. We stopped the boats and they will stay stopped under this government. My opposite, the shadow minister, got up and for the first 60 seconds had me engaged a little. I thought: 'Poor bloke. He could get only one question during question time after 335 days of not asking a single question during question time.' I thought I would give him a chance and hear what he had to say, but he lost me when he said that somehow there was bipartisan support when it comes to this issue of stopping the boats.

Labor in government under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard will be remembered for many things—for pink batts, kids dying in ceilings, the cheque giveaways and the incompetent state of the economy that they left to us—but they will be remembered most of all, in my judgement, for the way in which they failed when it came to boats in this country. When Labor came to power in 2007 there were a handful of people and no children at all in detention. That was the legacy of the Howard government bequeathed to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. What happened over the course of that government? All Australians know this story, and I am very happy we are being afforded an opportunity to repeat it today.

During Labor's period in government 52,000 people came on 821 boats. As the Australian public know, if you cannot control your borders you cannot control national security, and that was a large part of why Labor were kicked out of government. If you look at the shadow frontbench, those who aspire to be on this side of the parliament after the next election, you see failure after failure. I will go through that in a moment because their record goes to the complete and utter failure, the breakdown, of border security in this country under the Labor government.

It is a matter of public record that 1,200 people drowned at sea under Labor. Is it any wonder that we on this side have said that under Operation Sovereign Borders we will act within the law and meet our international obligations but in that context we will do what it takes to keep these people smugglers out of business? We stand by that statement. We absolutely stand by it.

All the people in the command structure of Operation Sovereign Borders, who ultimately answer to General Bottrell and I, will do whatever it takes within the law and to meet our international obligations to stop these people smugglers. For argument's sake, if we were faced with a situation where because of sea state we had the threat of people going into the water, we had the threat of a boat capsizing, and we were trying to turn that boat back, we would do whatever it took within the law to make sure that under Operation Sovereign Borders we could stop that vessel from landing on Australian soil, and we make no apology for that whatsoever. I will do whatever it takes and the Prime Minister of this country will do whatever it takes to protect our border protection staff and to protect our defence personnel who are operating under Operation Sovereign Borders. We will do whatever it takes to make sure we support the people smuggler victims, if you like—the people who are on these boats at sea—and we protect them at sea as best we can in the circumstances.

These are all very important points to make in the context of this debate. As the government has adopted from day one, we will provide updates under Operation Sovereign Borders when it is operationally appropriate to do so. The fact that Labor cannot get this demonstrates why they are still unfit to govern. If you cannot control your borders, you cannot provide assurances to the Australian people when it comes to national security.

I have got only a few minutes left so I want to go to the record of those opposite in relation to some of these claims. I want to go to the man who wants to be the Treasurer of this country after the next election, our friend the member for McMahon, Mr Bowen. When he was immigration minister in this country—and this is the man Labor wants to be Treasurer of this country—ultimately there was an $11 billion blowout as a result of actions taken directly by him and others, and under that man's watch 4,200 children arrived and were taken to detention. Today we have 124 children in detention. That is down from the peak of 1,992. When we came to government it was down to about 1,300. We have decreased it to 124. I pay tribute to the former immigration minister, Mr Morrison, to the Prime Minister and to members of the National Security Committee because we have adopted a policy that works. We have continued the success of Operation Sovereign Borders.

All of the claims made by those opposite and all of the confected outrage today demonstrates that the people opposite have no capacity to have the guts to stop the people smugglers again. The people smugglers are lurking in the shadows in Indonesia, across South-East Asia, in the Middle East and otherwise waiting, hoping and praying that Bill Shorten will be elected Prime Minister at the next election because when he was in government he provided streams of money into the pockets of these people.

I have spoken about the member for McMahon, but what about the member for Gorton, Mr O'Connor, when he was the immigration minister when Labor was last in power? He wants to be a cabinet minister in Bill Shorten's government. Let us have a look at his record. On his watch 12,821 people arrived on 184 boats in this country. We can hear a lot from the Labor Party but one thing we will not hear—one thing we will not be lectured on—is how to control our borders. As I said in my opening remarks, when John Howard left government he bequeathed a situation in which he had solved the problems that he inherited from the Hawke-Keating governments. Labor completely lost control of our borders, and Bill Shorten has not learnt one lesson. We have in place under Operation Sovereign Borders, under the command of General Bottrell, an operation which has closed down the people smugglers trade.

I think it has been very clear to all Australians during the course of the last couple of days and during the course of this debate that this person—who, when in government, ripped out over $600 million from our national security agencies—was part of a government that took money away from our front-line services that were seeking to stop the boats. People now get it. People now get that Bill Shorten is not fit to be Prime Minister of this country. People across the suburbs as we move around the country stop us and say that Bill Shorten has no capacity when it comes to stopping the boats. All Australians know that. He did not have the ticker when he sat around the cabinet table in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. He does not have the ticker now to stand up to the Left.

The true test of this opposition leader is coming in the next couple of weeks. If the Leader of the Opposition goes to the Labor conference and folds in the presence of the member for Sydney for the Left of the Labor Party to prevail in this matter—if he can not get, in conference, support from the Labor Left in relation to turning back boats where it is safe to do so, or if he cannot get the support of the Left in the Labor Party to adhere to the successful policy of temporary protection visas of this government, he has failed. So far this man has failed every test. We will see when he gives evidence in September to the royal commission whether he can pass another test. I suspect he cannot. The Australian public is on to this bloke. People know that he cannot pass the character test. People know that when it comes to the fortitude that is required to stand up to people smugglers—that is required to make sure that we can continue to stop the boats—this Prime Minister and this government are the only ones with the capacity to do that.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It expired two minutes ago.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it was not two minutes ago at all. The member for Grayndler can save his commentary.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just trying to help.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I will advise him that he is not. The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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