Subjects: Linda Burney's fraudulent transcript; company tax cuts; Defence; Andrew Hastie; Administrative Appeals Tribunal; MH17.
EO&E...........................................................................................................................................
PETER DUTTON:
There is a serious incident that's occurred. Linda Burney has, I think, made a terrible mistake. Suggesting that somehow a transcript has been put out and a word's been missed or a cough or an um and an argh, a word has been replaced to make the sentence look more structured – that's one thing – but what's happened here is Linda Burney has fabricated a document and it is apparent to all when you look at the difference between – and there are a couple of ways that you can look at this; even David Speers has been doctored in some of his…reporting of some of his comments – this is the transcript as it was put out by the Labor Party.
This is the actual transcript.
So you can see the difference between the two is significant.
To put it another way, I have highlighted the parts there of the discrepancies between the two documents.
Linda Burney's office puts out a statement saying that it was a mistake that they didn't mean to doctor the transcript. What does that actually mean? They didn't mean doctor it, but they did. As I say, it goes beyond doctoring. This is a fabrication of a document.
Linda Burney has lied here and she's put out a statement knowingly and in a way that is designed to deceive people.
Now I don't know how Bill Shorten can tolerate that from somebody so senior in the Labor Party and it is obvious today that Mr Shorten needs to provide an explanation as to why his office cleared this press release and released it at 6:50pm – as I am advised – last night.
So this is not something that's just gone out from Linda Burney's office, out of some junior press sec who's put it out in a hurried fashion. This has gone through Bill Shorten's office. It has been cleared by senior people and authorised by senior people – which is written down the bottom of the transcript that they have released – by senior people within the Labor Party.
This is not just some mistake by somebody transcribing and can't understand garbled words within a tape recording. This is a deliberate act of fabrication and Mr Shorten needs to explain who in his office knew about it; who in his office authorised this document to be released; why was this transcript sent out by one of Mr Shorten's staffers? These are questions that Mr Shorten needs to answer today.
Now, he'll want to fob you off, but the reality is that this is a serious issue for the Labor Party to contemplate.
It goes without saying that the Labor Party has completely discredited itself in relation to border protection policy. Bill Shorten's caucus now is much worse than anything that we saw under either Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard. It's clear to us now that the Labor Party boat policy has completely unravelled. It's essentially open warfare within the Labor Party on what they're going to do on boats.
Now you'll see some stitched together flashy statement out of conference that the Labor Party's got a policy which reflects the Operation Sovereign Borders policy, which has resulted in boats stopping. It is a complete and utter dodgy deal and nobody should believe it. The Labor Party has lost any credibility when it comes to border protection.
So Mr Shorten needs to come out today – quite beyond what their position is on border protection – and explain why somebody on his frontbench has fabricated a document. How can he trust Linda Burney? How can the Australian people trust Linda Burney when she has deliberately released a document knowing it to be false? And why was that document cleared by Mr Shorten's office? Who in Mr Shorten's office knew of the document? Who authorised it and was anybody in Mr Shorten's office aware of the significant fraud of this document that has taken place?
They are the questions that need to be answered by Mr Shorten today.
Happy to take any questions.
QUESTION:
Given developments this week with Pauline Hanson, shouldn't the Government accept that its corporate tax plan is now dead?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I'm sure Minister Cormann can address those questions.
QUESTION:
But aren't you frustrated, as a senior Minister in the Government, that a crossbencher is wielding so much power and toing and froing on this policy with no direction?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, as I say, I'm sure the Finance Minister will answer the questions on tax matters.
QUESTION:
Yesterday the Trade Minister Steve Ciobo failed to back in Marise Payne's statement about landing bombers in the South China Sea and said it was a decision for China. Is it a decision for China and what is the Governments position on this?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again; I mean ask the questions of the Foreign Minister or the Defence Minister.
I am here to talk about an issue which I think is very serious today and I think the fact that Mr Shorten's office had at least some knowledge – the extent to which we are not sure yet – of this fraudulent document, we need to know from Mr Shorten today what the extent of his office involvement was and what he gone too to rectify it.
QUESTION:
Given what you are saying about Linda Burney and openness and transparency I guess, do you back what Andrew Hastie did this week?
PETER DUTTON:
I dealt with that issue yesterday. I have no further comment to make in relation to it except to say that Andrew Hastie is a person of impeccable character. He is a person who has served our country. He has this nation's best interests at heart.
QUESTION:
Would you have done the same thing in his position?
PETER DUTTON:
He has an outlook on national security that very few of us could bring to the table. He is a patriot of this country, he is a person of fine character and in relation to the statements that he has made; I don't have knowledge of the statement or the documents. That was an issue for him, as it is for any Member of Parliament under parliamentary privilege.
That is a very separate matter, I might say, to what we are dealing with in relation to Linda Burney. Linda Burney has deliberately put out a statement with Bill Shorten's office knowledge and with authorisation from a senior figure within the Labor Party. It's not just a word or two that might have been brushed out or tidied up. It is a complete fabrication and it needs to be answered by Mr Shorten today.
QUESTION:
[inaudible] they find out in confidential briefings with the FBI?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I don't know the source of the documents, what was open source, the rest of it and I've dealt with that issue.
QUESTION:
But more broadly Minister, is it appropriate for people who, you know, through their position in Parliament to get information from the FBI, from our allies and then expose it publicly? Do you find that an appropriate action?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I've already dealt with that issue. Are there any questions on Ms Burney?
QUESTION:
On the transcript; the transcript that's been put out still says there needs to be a time limit on detention. So it's still saying what she said in the interview. So what's your problem?
PETER DUTTON:
Oh come on. A Labor staffer has issued a fraudulent document. Ms Burney has presided over a fraudulent document going out, purporting to be something that it is not. Bill Shorten's office had knowledge of it and distributed the document. Mr Shorten needs to answer the question: why his office was involved in the publication and distribution of this fraudulent document? How can Mr Shorten trust somebody on his frontbench who has deliberately lied in relation to what she said? And this is not a, as I say, not a clarification, not an improvement on grammar, It is a fabrication, pure and simple.
QUESTION:
In regards to the AAT and Mr Khalil, has the AAT let the community down?
PETER DUTTON:
I've been very critical of a number of decisions made by the AAT and I continue to be so. I think we need to have a reflection of community standards. People of course need to make their decisions according to law and natural justice and nobody would argue against that. But there are some decisions which I can't comprehend the logic and the ultimate outcome and I think most Australians would be in that scenario.
I have turned over, or overturned a number of decisions out of the AAT and I do believe that in terms of the way in which the migration appeals process works, it does need reform. We have seen countless examples over a long period of time now where we've had criminals who have had their visas cancelled only to be reinstated by the AAT – and in some cases they've gone on to commit further crimes – and my concern is about the victims of these crimes and why they should suffer at the hands of somebody that shouldn't even be in our country.
QUESTION:
Is enough being done to change the culture of the Defence Force? There are 265 reports of sexual misconduct last year, the highest level in five years.
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I mean it's a question for the Defence Minister.
QUESTION:
In Estimates this week, they said that a significant number of refugees were rejected in the US process. Do you expect those refugees to be taken in by any other country?
PETER DUTTON:
By PNG. That's the arrangement that Mr Rudd struck. So all this sanctimony and hypocrisy that you are hearing from people like Ged Kearney who pretends to be this great moral crusader, it was her government, it was Labor that set up the agreement where people if they were found to be refugees would settle in PNG. There was no time limit ever. There was no time limit ever put on the deal that Mr Rudd agreed to with PNG that allowed Manus to open and to have people stay at Manus. There was no time limit.
What Linda Burney and others within the Labor Party are now saying is that there should be a time limit which is basically like waving a one way ticket to Australia and that's exactly what the Labor policy is at the moment.
Bill Shorten at Conference shouldn't wave around a policy document, he should wave around a one way ticket to Australia because that's what people smugglers will be marketing if Labor gets into power at the next election.
It's obvious to all that this moral high ground that they want to pretend to occupy is a complete nonsense because 1,200 people drowned at sea when Labor got their way last time and if Ged Kearney gets her way – and she is a very powerful voice within the Labor caucus – people will again drown at sea.
So I'm not going to be lectured to by Ged Kearney or any of her fellow travellers because she has no moral high ground at all. She presided over 8,000 kids going into detention, she presided over 50,000 people arriving on 800 boats are now somehow wants to say oh well Labor's got a better policy again. It's a complete nonsense.
QUESTION:
Minister, you've said many times that you want people off Manus Island and Nauru. This is a week in which yet another asylum seeker has died on Manus Island. So is there really no time limit? Are you prepared to leave people there indefinitely?
PETER DUTTON:
I'm not going to have 1,200 people drowning at sea again. Not on my watch. Labor can change the policy and allow people to drown again.
We have offered significant resettlement packages, we have offered support for people and many thousands have taken up the offer to go back home or to settle in a third country or in PNG where a number of people have now settled.
I am not going to allow the people smugglers to get back into business…
QUESTION:
…so they can stay there indefinitely?
PETER DUTTON:
..and that's the arrangement that Kevin Rudd provided for, that they would stay in PNG. There is nothing that the Labor Party can point to either in the document or in any word that Mr Rudd or anybody on the frontbench – including Mr Shorten uttered at the time – that would indicate to you that there was any other arrangement in place.
If people were found to be refugees, they were to stay in PNG – that was the arrangement that Labor brokered.
So I don't want to see anyone on Manus. We are the only Government that has brokered a deal to get 1,200 people off Manus and Nauru and we are working through that number, but we don't have a solution to stop people smugglers beyond the policies that we've got in place at the moment and if Labor undoes those policies, there will be more people going into Nauru and there will be more people, I think, going into somewhere again like Manus because the boats will restart and that is the reality of what Labor's got on offer here.
The smart people within Labor know that they need to adopt the policy of the Liberal Party, of the Coalition, but they haven't got control of their caucus. All of these people are living in a fantasy land if they believe that they can reintroduce the mistakes of Rudd and Gillard and that somehow we won't see the deaths at sea again. We will.
So if we're worried about people who are being harmed, well let's spare a thought and not just a momentary thought, but think about the 1,200 people that drowned at sea. That's what Labor presided over.
I don't want to see anyone on Manus or Nauru. I want them off and we've brokered a deal with the US to take 1,200 people. There are no other third countries who are immediately available. That's the reality.
QUESTION:
New Zealand is offering.
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I have dealt with that before Michael. I mean you are a smart person who understands that New Zealand, unlike any other country in the world, has the ability for people to go there and then to come to Australia and receive a visa on arrival. Not the United States, not Canada, not France, no other country in the world can you have somebody hop on a plane without a visa to come to our country. In New Zealand that is completely different.
So at this point in time, as I've said, maybe at some stage in the future when you are down to a small number of people, we aren't at that stage.
All of the intelligence indicates – as we've just seen out of Malaysia – that the boats are ready and willing. We've turned back 32. Had the 32 got through on Labor's watch, I promise you 500 would have followed and that's where we are at.
There is no easy decision on the table here and don't be fooled into believing that there is.
QUESTION:
Can I also just ask, is it acceptable that the wife of the man who died on Manus Island this week found out about the death by media enquiries?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I will leave that to the PNG and to the authorities there. There will obviously be a coronial inquest in relation to the matter and there are other matters in the background of that – as there always is in any of these cases – that properly be investigated by the authorities and that is an issue the PNG.
QUESTION:
Could I just get a comment from you on MH17 and the closing of that investigation? How upsetting is that I suppose for the families of those lost?
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, it's an issue for the Deputy Prime Minister and others to comment on, but I will speak briefly as a local member. I have spoken to families who have lost loved ones and it is a terrible situation, whether it is 370 or 17. I mean this is the families out of both of those incidents want answers and you can understand that, you would want that if the tragedy struck your own family, but it is a difficult situation and there is no obvious or apparent answer to it. You can only rely on the experts as to what the next steps should be and again, you spare a thought all the families in this situation because they relive their loss every time this is back in the news.
Thank you.
[ends]