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

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—

That this House censure the Prime Minister for her confirmation today that she will defy the will of both Houses of Parliament that have condemned this Government’s Malaysia people swap.

Standing orders must be suspended today because that is the only way to ensure that the will of this parliament is secured. There is no more important issue currently before this parliament than ensuring that the parliament is sovereign.

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have rarely seen such pettiness surrounding what goes on when there is movement in this chamber. I would have thought that people would wish to listen to their leader. I find this surprising and I am happy to try to do something about it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call, and I have to make a judgment whether standing around is distracting. I have the belief that it only becomes distracting when people react to it. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

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

This is a motion to suspend standing orders to censure this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has scurried from the chamber. Not only does this government not listen to the expressed will of the parliament; this Prime Minister will not even listen to debate in this parliament, and nothing could condemn the attitude of this Prime Minister more than the fact that she will not even sit in this parliament while questions of parliamentary sovereignty are debated. Shame on this Prime Minister!

Why is this Prime Minister running away from the parliament? I will tell you why: she is running away from the parliament because she has lost control of the parliament. There could be no more important matter for this House to debate right now than the utter shambles which is the government's policy on border protection, the utter shambles which is the government's Malaysian people-swap policy.

In the end, this motion is not about the policy of the government. This is about the sovereignty of the parliament. Mr Speaker, let me remind you what the House passed today. The House passed a resolution moved by the honourable member for Melbourne that (1) condemns the Gillard government's deal with Malaysia that would see 800 asylum seekers intercepted in Malaysian waters and sent to Malaysia, and (2) calls on the government to immediately abandon this proposal. That is what this parliament has done today. It has called on the government to immediately abandon this proposal. Whatever you think of the government's policy, the issue is the parliament has called on the government to abandon the policy. So this is about the sovereignty of the parliament and I ask this question, which ought to resonate right around this country: why is this Prime Minister so scared to listen to the parliament and the people of Australia?

The parliament and the people of Australia are sending a very clear message to this government and to this Prime Minister: this Malaysian people swap is just not on. It is just not on because it is cruel, it is costly and it will be ineffective. We know that members opposite are equally concerned about the government's policy on this matter. We know that members opposite have been raising this matter in caucus. We know that members opposite are very concerned that people will be sent from Australia to Malaysia, not to enjoy the standards of care and concern that they would get in an Australian processing centre but to be exposed to the norms of the Malaysian criminal justice system. And this parliament has stood up for Australian values, this parliament has stood up for Australian decency and this parliament has stood up for Australia taking proper responsibility for the people who come to these shores and now this weak, inept and soulless government is defying the will of this parliament. That is why standing orders should be suspended.

I say again that nothing could be more contemptible than the failure of this Prime Minister to sit in this parliament and listen to this debate. What is wrong with the Prime Minister of this country that she will not at least listen to debate? She may not like what is being said but, as the Prime Minister of this country, she really has a duty to listen to it. Why is the Prime Minister scared of debate? Why is the Prime Minister scared of the parliament?

This is a government which has lost control of the parliament. This is a government which has lost control of our borders. This is a government which has clearly lost its own soul—and don't members opposite know it! This is a government which is proposing to do to people who arrive on the shores of this country something that if even contemplated for a second by the Howard government would have been condemned up hill and down dale; every refugee advocate in this country would have been condemning this as the cruellest and the least humane thing that had ever been done in the history of this country. I have to say that, to their credit, some of those selfsame refugee advocates are now saying much the same thing about this government.

The problem with the Malaysian people swap is that the Malaysian government will control the people who are coming to their country, the Malaysian government is saying, quite understandably, 'We will control who comes to our country and the circumstances under which they will come.' That is what the Malaysian government is saying, and the Malaysian government is further saying, 'If they come to our country they will be treated in accordance with Malaysian standards of justice, no-one else's'—and we know what they are. I am not critical of the Malaysian government imposing its standards of justice on people in that country, but I am critical of this government for imposing on people who have come to this country the standards of justice of another country. This is why this Prime Minister is wrong and this is why the parliament has made the judgment that it made today—and this is why for defying the judgment the Prime Minister deserves to be condemned.

There is a better way. It is a way that this parliament could well consider but has not yet considered. The better way is a way which is more humane, which is more cost effective and which is certainly more proven; that is, to reopen the processing centre in Nauru. That is what this government should do. I have been to Nauru. I did not rely on someone else to assure me that this could be effectively done. I have seen where boat people will be accommodated—and well accommodated. I have seen where boat people's children will be educated—and well educated. I have seen the police headquarters which will deal with security issues involving boat people in Nauru. And I can tell you this, Mr Speaker: there are no rotans in Nauru and there are no whipping posts in Nauru. There is no need for boat people sent to Nauru to be tagged, as if tagging would somehow save them from cruel and inhumane treatment. So I say, first of all, shame on this government for a cruel and inhumane policy but, most of all, shame on this government for defying the will of this parliament. This parliament has expressed its view of the government's policy. Now I say, and I say it particularly to the member for Melbourne, it is time to punish this government for defying the will of the parliament.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion, Mr Speaker. I stand here with the coalition to defend the principles of parliamentary democracy. I stand here with the coalition to defend the sovereignty of this parliament. This parliament is a more powerful institution than this arrogant Prime Minister and this parliament will not be ignored by this arrogant Prime Minister. This parliament is an institution that is fundamental to our stability. It is fundamental to our prosperity. It cannot be ignored even by this arrogant Prime Minister.

I had thought I had seen it all from this government. I thought I had seen the depths which it was prepared to plumb. Yet it has proven me wrong: it can go lower. Not only does it trash its election promises, not only is it prepared to walk away from every philosophical base it has ever aspired to and not only is it prepared to abandon its convictions and abandon the people that voted for it; it is prepared to defy the will of this parliament as expressed by both houses of this parliament today. This is the height of arrogance and the height of disrespect to the Australian people. The Australian people elected 150 members to this House and they elected 76 senators to the other place, and a majority of those members and a majority of those senators decided today that this government's so-called Malaysian solution should be condemned, that this government should listen to the representatives elected by the Australian people and withdraw its inhumane, ill-conceived, illogical and fundamentally flawed Malaysian solution and find a better way. Yet this government has ignored it. This is the type of behaviour we see in Third World dictatorships. This is the kind of behaviour, overriding the majority of both houses of parliament, overriding the will of the parliament, overriding the views of the majority of the elected members to this place.

The character of the Prime Minister is now on full display to the Australian people. It is not an edifying sight. The arrogance and contempt for the democratic process of this nation are now on full display. Australia deserves better. Australia deserves much better than this Prime Minister, who must be censured for defying the will of the Australian people through this parliament. The nation deserves better than an arrogant Prime Minister who is willing to defy the will of the parliament in the same way that she defies the will of the Australian people. Let me take the House back to early 2010 when this Prime Minister told the Australian public that she would not challenge her leader for the leadership. She promised to be a loyal deputy, but did the member for Griffith find out she could not be trusted! She betrayed the member for Griffith, she betrayed her leader. And now she has betrayed the Australian people by her broken promise over the carbon tax. The Australian people remember how this arrogant Prime Minister looked down the barrel of a camera and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Yet she broke that promise and has now sought to introduce a carbon tax having promised not to.

There is nothing this Prime Minister can say that the Australian people can trust anymore. How can the Australian people trust the Prime Minister to operate this country in a democratic way, to put in place the state of the nation along democratic lines, when she is prepared to arrogantly toss aside a motion that has been passed by both houses of this parliament? How can the Australian people trust anything she says anymore? She has shown such arrogance for other nations in our region, the way she treated East Timor over the East Timor processing centre, the way she has treated Malaysia over this Malaysia solution, the way she has treated Papua New Guinea, ignoring the sovereign status of those countries. Now she is doing it to our own nation. This Prime Minister, the leader of this country, is now defying the sovereignty of this parliament and she must be censured for it. What is even more extraordinary is that this Prime Minister is not even in this chamber to answer this call. She is not even here to answer this motion. What arrogance, what contempt! This Prime Minister must be censured and she must be brought back to the House to answer to this House.

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

Mr Speaker—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting

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

Order! The Leader of the House, who is seeking the call, will be heard in silence.

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

I am indeed, Mr Speaker, and I am very pleased to speak in opposition to this motion, which is a motion to suspend the standing orders—

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek your guidance under standing orders whether there is a precedent for a person other than the Prime Minister to respond to a censure of the Prime Minister.

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

Clearly people do not listen to the motion that is before the House. This is for the suspension of standing orders to enable a motion that has been referred to in the point of order. The Leader of the House has the call and I would take any other point of order as being deliberately disruptive.

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

This is indeed a suspension of standing orders, the 12th this year. This is the 12th out of 28 question times that have been disrupted by those opposite. It is now up to 45 per cent and this is two out of three this week where we have had a suspension of standing orders moved. But those opposite show their contempt for the parliament in not even knowing what it is that they have moved before the chamber. The fact is that there are procedures in place in which you can move a censure. You stand up and you seek leave and you either get it or you do not. Then you move to a suspension. What those opposite have done is defy 111 years of history, as they have done in question time after question time this year on 12 separate occasions, when they have been the only opposition in history to have walked away from the opportunity of question time, the opportunity to hold the government to account.

This is indeed an extraordinary suspension that they have moved. They have moved a suspension on the basis of the resolution of the member for Melbourne that he moved in this chamber earlier today and that the coalition supported. I will say this about the member for Melbourne: I believe he was very sincere in his advocacy of that resolution. That is more than I can say for those opposite, who rant and rave about stopping the boats but do not have any real solutions to put forward. The position that this government is putting forward is about breaking the people-smuggling business. But what those opposite are worried about is not just that the people-smuggling business will be broken; it is that their cheap slogan business will be broken as well. They actually are not interested in solutions. That is why this is an absurd position they have put forward. There has been nothing positive carried by this chamber or by the Senate but simply opposition. They want to jump on board and say that that should be the basis for policy making on an issue which they say is vital for Australia.

There can be no greater example of how the Leader of the Opposition is all opposition and no leader—no greater example than that. There is no greater example than the walking vuvuzela out there once again saying, 'No, no, no, no, no!' even when his inconsistent, rank opportunism, which has no bounds whatsoever, attaches himself to the Greens asylum seeker position. I mean, for goodness sake! They have gone on for month after month, week after week, day after day, and they would have it that this parliament's position is the position of the member for Melbourne. I say with due respect to the member for Melbourne, I do not think even he would argue that he has the support of the entire parliament for his position on asylum seekers.

They cannot even follow a script. The Leader of the Opposition said that this parliament had not expressed a view on Nauru. He said that repeatedly. He consulted the Manager of Opposition Business, he consulted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on her position and he consulted the shadow minister. On 28 October, debate resumed on the motion by Mr Morrison that was moved on 18 October.

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

That was last year.

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

The member for Cook says it was last year. The Leader of the Opposition said it never happened. Let me read you the bit of it that was rejected by this parliament: 'The reopening of a third-country processing centre in Nauru for irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. That was rejected by the House of Representatives.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

And now the member for Cook maintains that it was good policy. It was defeated by this House but it was good policy. But the position that this government is advocating, with a real solution to break the people smugglers' model, they say is not relevant. The fact is that not only was it defeated, not only did members of the government oppose it, not only did members of the crossbenches oppose it, but members of their own party opposed it. The member for Pearce and the member for McMillan indicated very publicly and in the caucus room that they would not vote for this position. So they had to pair them out, and the Hansard of 28 October 2010 indicates that. I await the personal explanation from the member for Pearce saying that it is not true what I am saying. She will not do that because she has more integrity than the member for Cook, who is engaged in this cheap-jack opportunism that we see before the parliament here today.

The fact is that there are a number of issues which should be debated in this question time. There are a number of issues which should be able to be asked by all members of the parliament. We have the challenge of climate change. We have the reintroduction of a form of Work Choices by their New South Wales Liberal Party colleagues. We have ongoing issues in terms of job creation and the economy. We have a budget with major initiatives, including mental health reform, superannuation, infrastructure development, child care and family assistance. All of these issues could be asked about if question time had not ended prematurely as it has been yet again today, for the 12th time. The fact is that we are now up in the order of 120 questions lost because of the failure of those opposite to value question time—the failure of those opposite to regard parliamentary procedure with the respect that it deserves. So we are not going to be lectured by those opposite about resolutions of motions that are debated and voted upon in this House.

The extraordinary proposition is that a resolution of the Senate should be binding on the government. I well remember before they got control of the Senate and introduced Work Choices and went too far, which resulted in us sitting on the government benches, the Senate day after day, week after week, carried all sorts of resolutions, without any consequences whatsoever. No-one in the Howard government ever noticed what resolutions were being carried by the Senate. This suspension should be rejected because we should return the parliament to the processes and the orders which should take place. Question time has been ended today as a result of this, and that is simply because those opposite are not interested in holding the government to account.

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

The time allotted for the debate has concluded. The question before the House is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition for the suspension of standing and sessional orders.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

While the House is relatively quiet, I indicate to the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon a group of cadets and staff from the Officer Cadet School in New Zealand who are here in Australia to celebrate RMC Duntroon's centenary next week. On behalf of members, I extend them a warm welcome.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

I am also informed that they may be playing a game of rugby against the RMC Duntroon cadets. I do not think, on behalf of the House, I can wish them luck for that.

The House divided. [14:55]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

The requirements of standing order 47(c)(ii) for an absolute majority having not been satisfied, the motion was not carried.

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

further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.