Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What are the risks of alternative approaches to the Morrison government's well-known, stable and secure approach to border protection policies?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the Minister for Home Affairs, I made my position clear yesterday on the content of answers. I am not in a position, obviously, to know what the minister is going to say, but I have a fair idea. I am going to say to the minister that the House of RepresentativesPractice and the standing orders are very clear. I think the question is cleverly written and is in order, but it is the answer I will be focusing on. I am not going to allow questions—I am going to make this point about House of Representatives Practice. The standing orders make it clear that ministers can only be questioned about matters for which they are responsible. I say in all seriousness that the government is very keen to enforce that when it gets questions from the opposition about matters for which there are not responsible. The Practice makes very clear that some Speakers have had a very strict approach and indeed not even allowed taglines like 'alternative policies'. I have been more liberal, but there has never been a time when an entire answer can be about an opposition's policy. I am saying that because the policies the minister is responsible for are the government's. The question is, as I said, cleverly written and in order, but, for the minister to be in order with his answer, he needs to take the approach that I have been allowing. I will let him have a go.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel the weight of your expectation, Mr Speaker. I'll make this very important point: the policies on border protection of the Morrison government are not only well-known but well liked by the Australian people, because they backed them again at the last election. I tell you what else is well-known: the border protection policies of the Howard government were well-known and well liked. It's important to point out, as part of this debate, not only our position but the position of those opposite because their policies on border protection are also well-known, not so well liked. The Australian public made a judgement about Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard—that they were a disaster when it came to border protection policies. They put people on Manus and Nauru, people drowned at sea, kids were in detention, it was a huge failure and the chaos was unbelievable. It's strange that the Leader of the Opposition has continued exactly the same bad policy as that of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, so you can understand it is not very well liked. Who in this parliament would offer up policies that are not well liked? KK is the answer—Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally has presided over policies not even known to many of those on the front bench.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just going to say to the minister: he has to relate his material to his responsibilities. That's what he needs to do. The question wasn't about whether anything was popular; the question was about risks to the government's current policies. In order to do that in the remaining time, he needs to at least outline what the policies are if he's going to outline what the risks are; otherwise we'll move to the next question.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We stand for strong border protection policies. It is at the heart of the Morrison government. We have introduced laws that have kept our borders secure, stopped people smugglers in their tracks, but the threat has not gone away. It's important to understand that there are alternative approaches to that which we've presided over. The alternative approach is the medevac law introduced by Labor which has sent a green light to—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

It was absolutely introduced and supported by you. The Leader of the Opposition says, 'I don't know anything about Medevac.' That's what he interjects.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just say to the Leader of the Opposition: if he's got a point of order, I'll hear it. If he's wishing to answer something the minister said—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

If the Leader of the Opposition has a point of order, I'll hear it. But the point of order can't be that he disagrees with something that minister said. He can take that up at the end of question time, as he knows. The minister has 27 seconds left. The minister has the call.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know under the medevac law that people are coming to Australia through a back door. We know that people have come here not for medical needs. That is very clear because people have arrived and have refused medical attention. We know that of 135 people that have come, about 10 per cent went into hospital; none of them are in hospital. Labor was all about bringing people in through the back door, as always. (Time expired)