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

I rise to speak in this debate on the suspension of standing orders. I listened very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say before. He said two things in particular. He said, ‘I make no criticism of asylum seekers.’ He went on to say, ‘And we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’I repeat what he said to the parliament and the nation at large. He said, ‘I make no criticism of asylum seekers’ and then he went on to say, ‘And we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’ I am not quite sure what lawyer’s trick the member for Wentworth believes he is playing with this parliament and the people of Australia, but he knows full well that he has unleashed this debate for a base political motive, which is to inculcate a culture of fear in Australia. And he has sat back and encouraged the likes of all those opposite to engage in the most extreme comments possible in order to, first of all, have a debate on this matter; secondly, to bring about fear in the community; and, thirdly, to obtain political advantage from the above. But then the lawyer from central casting, the barrister from Wentworth, says, ‘Oh, I make no criticism of asylum seekers’ and ‘Oh, we must address this question in a calm and measured way.’

All this, of course, was put into absolutely stark contrast earlier today when the member for O’Connor went out and made his most extraordinary statements this morning about asylum seekers. Then, at a quarter to two this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he owned those comments or distanced himself from them. There was stunning and absolute silence as the Leader of the Opposition, completely abandoned of any morally consistent position on this question, simply hoped that he could allow that one to go through to the keeper. It was the old dog-whistle approach of allowing Wilson and the others to go out there to talk it up, while saying, ‘I, the Leader of the Opposition, an innocent party, supporter of asylum seekers and supporter of calm and rational debate have nothing to do with the above.’ And then, mysteriously, an hour and a half later here in the House of Representatives, as this motion was moved, he said something rapidly in passing to the effect of—if I heard it correctly—that he did not approve of certain elements of what the member for O’Connor said.

I am somewhat confused by all this. At a quarter to two he goes out there with the Australian media and is asked a question about whether he stands behind the comments of the member for O’Connor, or whether he repudiates them or whether he will do the right and correct thing, which is to demand that the member for O’Connor be disendorsed as the Liberal candidate for O’Connor. Silence, silence, silence! Then the pressure comes on in the House of Representatives and, whoopsie, we have got to make a correction here in the House. Where has the moral fibre and moral character of the Leader of the Opposition gone? And then there is the consistency in approach of what we have seen with all three Liberal frontbenchers engaged in this debate—the member for Murray, the member for Curtin and the Leader of the Opposition—all politically endangered species. That is what it is about. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition is on borrowed political time. We know that, once there is a leadership change within the opposition, the member for Curtin is next in the gun. And we know that the member for Murray has suddenly hit her straps on this issue, notwithstanding her historical position on certain of these issues. But, suddenly, having done ‘Berowra with pike’ she decided that in fact the smart thing to do was to get with the message and get on with the fear campaign about asylum seekers. So what is the common point here between the member for Murray, the member for Curtin and the member for Wentworth? All fear for their political careers. So what do they do? They shred anything approaching policy principle, they shred anything approaching political consistency and they shred anything in terms of a consistent moral compass on any of these matters.

I say to those opposite that the entire basis for their attack on asylum seekers and the way in which this government responds to this challenge rests on the assumption that their policies were responsible for a reduction in arrivals to Australia and that our policies have been responsible for an increase in arrivals to Australia. They are completely oblivious to all the global facts. The global facts, which they choose to ignore, are that in the period 2001 to 2003, following their introduction of the Pacific solution, we had a radical global decrease in the numbers coming from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka because of global factors operating around the world. All countries experienced a global reduction. What has happened in the period subsequent to that—2007, 2008 and into the present time—is that around the world there has been a global increase in the outflow from Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan, and all countries in the world are experiencing an increase in the number of arrivals coming from those countries.

The third great myth alive in this piece of, shall I say, political self-preservation on the part of the member for Curtin, the member for Murray and the member for Wentworth is to somehow pretend that they have embraced a different policy. So why was it, Member for Murray, that you stood up in such false embrace of the government’s formal change in position when you made those remarks in support of the government’s policy? When asked, ‘Do you support these approaches?’ you said, ‘I do.’ Those opposite pretend that they were not here in the parliament when we decided to change our approach on temporary protection visas. They had an opportunity to register a view in this place and they did not. In other words, their policy on temporary protection visas is the same as the government’s policy since the election of this government. Their policy on the abolition of the Pacific solution is the same as the government’s, as we said we would do in government prior to the election. And I assume they do not want to return children to behind razor wire—or do they? That is one of the other policy positions that we have taken since being in government. But I wait for a clear statement from those opposite. What is the alternative policy? What is that which they seek us to change? Do you hear a clear statement from those opposite?

See this speech in context