Subjects: US resettlement of refugees from Nauru and PNG; Bill Shorten's opposition to the Government's strong and effective border protection policy; migration to Australia; restoring integrity in the 457 visa programme; Section 18C; President of the Human Rights Commission.

E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

We're joined now by the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton live from Brisbane. Thanks very much for your company.

PETER DUTTON:

Pleasure, Peter. Thank you.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Can you tell us anything about a possible deal with Malaysia? We also heard a little earlier on morning television, the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, talking about this, obviously making the point that you can't get into specifics at this point in time because it's an ongoing discussion, but can we confirm that it at least is an ongoing discussion?

PETER DUTTON:

Peter, I've said on your programme and said consistently for a long period of time that we're not going to publicly comment on any negotiations we might be having with third countries. We've been desperate to get people off Nauru and Manus to third countries. We want to clean up Labor's mess and we want to do it in such a way that won't restart boats.

The Gillard Government made the famous mistake of talking about their agreement with East Timor – they'd forgotten to mention it to East Timor – that fell in a flop. They did a deal with Malaysia at the time where we took people from Malaysia but nobody ever went there and, in the end, it was an agreement for 500 people when 50,000 came and it was ruled invalid by the courts here in Australia.

So I think we're more prudent to have discussions behind the scenes, make announcements in due course, but our absolute desire, having got all of the children out of detention on the mainland and closed those 17 detention centres, is to get women and children, family units, off Nauru as a priority and then the remaining people off Nauru and Manus, if that's possible, and that's what we're working toward.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Would it be a fair descriptor though to say that the Government, with the US deal that has been announced, isn't putting or isn't planning to put all of its eggs in the one basket?

PETER DUTTON:

Well, we've always said that ideally we want a multilateral arrangement and we've got an arrangement with Cambodia. Under the arrangement that Mr Rudd entered into with Mr O'Neill, PNG has responsibility for those that have been found to be refugees and for those people to settle in PNG and obviously we've had discussions with a number of other countries, but I don't want to pre‑empt any announcement or any discussion. I don't think people want to see these things played out in public. They want a government that's responsible, has the maturity to deal with these issues as they present and Labor could never negotiate any of these sort of arrangements because they had 1,000 people a week coming by boat.

We've had now almost 850 days since we've not had a successful boat arrival. No deaths at sea compared to the 1,200 under Labor and we are on our way to cleaning up Labor's mess. It's a very costly exercise and it will be with us for some years. It's not going to be cleaned up overnight because it was one of the biggest public policy failings and humanitarian crises in our region, frankly – prevailed over by any government in this country -- and so we're working away at resolving Labor's problem and we need Labor's support, frankly, in the Senate next week to support our legislation which is a very clear message to people smugglers that we're not going to allow them to get back into business.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Well, just on that, can I ask you about that legislation? It's passed the House. You say you want Labor's support in the Senate. More likely though you're going to have to deal with the crossbenchers, aren't you? Because Bill Shorten looks like he's hung his colours to the mast on this one and will be opposing it. It would be akin to a complete 180 for him to turn around and support that legislation in the Senate. You're expecting to put that up, what, not this coming parliamentary week but the one after?

PETER DUTTON:

That's most likely Peter. Look, I don't think Labor has any issue here and any alternative. I mean they have a deal before them to support and there are a couple of reasons why Labor needs to support this. One is that it helps us deal with a legacy caseload, the legacy that they created – so people who are on Nauru or Manus that aren't found to be refugees, are not subject to the US arrangement or likely any prospective arrangement and we need to send a clear message to those people that they have to return back to their country of origin – six hundred and fifty people before them have done that, but at the moment they hold out, believing they'll come to Australia and we need to send a clear message to them.

The case is now even more compelling for Bill Shorten to support this deal because we don't want new boat arrivals and if the people smugglers seek to turn the US announcement into some sort of propaganda for people to pay money and get onto boats, then I think Mr Shorten needs to own up to this problem. It is a problem of Labor's making. We're cleaning up Labor's mess, but we can't have new boat arrivals filling up the vacancies that we're creating under these deals.

Now, the people smugglers watch every word that I say, that the Prime Minister says, Mr Shorten and the State Premiers and other leaders in our country have to say on this issue and they try to massage it into a marketing exercise to get people on to boats. So there's not only an imperative in terms of the Labor Party supporting this Bill in the Senate, but it's also the important message that needs to be heard by the people smugglers. They need a position of unity between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and at the moment there's only one leader stepping up and that's Malcolm Turnbull.

PAUL KELLY:

Minister, are you in fact telling us that if this legislation is not passed, the consequence will be more boat arrivals?

PETER DUTTON:

Paul, I think that is a very real problem and that is evidenced by the fact that we've moved additional assets, including boats – we've got a very close working relationship with the Australian Defence Force as you know – we've got additional surveillance in the air, there is additional work that we're doing with our partners in the region as well – there are 16 agencies involved in Operation Sovereign Borders.

So we are very concerned about what people smugglers will try and market and we don't want new boat arrivals and I think at the moment, the indecision and the weakness shown again by Labor – evidenced by the fact that 26 people within the Labor Party, in the parliamentary wing, came out to oppose this legislation before Bill Shorten could open his mouth on it – and it shows still the division within Labor on border protection policy at a time when we need Labor to step up.

The people smugglers saw weak leaders in Rudd and Gillard and, frankly, they've found an even weaker leader in Bill Shorten. He needs to step up so that people smugglers can hear a strong and consistent message from our country and if new boat arrivals are a reality over the coming weeks or months, then frankly, Mr Shorten will have to stick his hand up for that because it is an unacceptable position for the Labor Party, having created this mess, to step in the way of us trying to clean it up.

PAUL KELLY:

The reality however is that there's no fixed relationship, isn't there, between the United States refugee deal on the one hand and this legislation on the other?

PETER DUTTON:

There's no requirement....I mean there are a couple of red herrings put out there by Labor last week that somehow they didn't have to support this deal because it wasn't a precondition of the US arrangement. I mean that is just a juvenile argument. This country, our Government, will decide the legislation that we have to put in place that is best going to deliver us the outcome of stopping new boat arrivals and we've been very clear.

The Labor Party, I thought, had been clear in saying that anybody who came by boat wouldn't settle in this country, but you've now got Members of the Labor Party running around saying that they're not even in support of Regional Processing Centres. The Temporary Protection Visa element, which is an absolute key to the success that we've had in Operation Sovereign Borders, was abandoned by Bill Shorten as well and I think, frankly, they'd be weak on boat turn backs; and when you add all of that up, if Labor was re‑elected at the next election, it would be a recipe for disaster.

The deaths at sea would recommence and the boats would again occupy our waters to the north and the west. I don't think Australians want that and I think that's why Mr Shorten, at some stage, is going to have to show leadership and stare down the Left within his own Party.

PAUL KELLY:

Minister, how confident are you, how confident can you be that the Trump Administration will in fact honour this deal you've done with the Obama Administration?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Paul there are lots of commentators and experts on what Mr Trump will do in this area or that area. I don't seek to add to it. The only point that I would make is that we have a very long and enduring special relationship with the United States. It spans many decades. There are many areas of cooperation within my portfolio, within the defence portfolio, across government. There is a lot of information that we share about millions of people crossing borders each year. We're part of a Five Eyes compact on sharing intelligence. There are many, many different aspects and this relationship is long‑standing and it runs very deep.

The Trump Administration will understand that this is a very important issue to the Australian Government and equally there are ways in which we will continue to support the Administration when it's sworn in on the 20th of January.

So we've established a good relationship with the Obama Administration. I want to continue that relationship with the Trump Administration and we've had a very close working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security, with Jeh Johnson, the outgoing Secretary and I'll quickly establish that same relationship with the incoming secretary. So I'm confident that we can continue to work very closely with the Trump Administration and we share similar values in terms of wanting to defeat ISIL and terrorists. We want to share that information on an ongoing basis. We want to work together as threats come across our borders. We want to make sure that we can deal with the problem as Australia, Canada and the United States have done for a long period of time in relation to a rational response to irregular people movement.

So there are lots of good signs and indicators as to why this relationship will continue to work well and I'm confident that that will be the case.

PAUL KELLY:

What's your response to the comments made by Bill Shorten this week because he clearly distanced himself from the Trump Administration in terms of highlighting and arguing that there were significant differences in values between Australia and Donald Trump? To what extent did you think this is going to be a problem for the Turnbull Government in dealing with the Trump Administration and in securing effective cooperation with them?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Paul I think Bill Shorten demonstrated this week that he was a great chameleon of Australian politics. I mean he can't be trusted. People in his working life have worked out that Bill Shorten can't be trusted. I mean he's double‑crossed most people he's ever worked with and he's running around this week trying to create a distraction away from their division on border protection by running this phoney argument on 457 visas.

He's put all of these red herrings up. He's out there beating his chest saying that we'll only buy Australian, only employ Australian workers, we'll close our borders, all the rest of it and then at the same time he wants the other audience that he's talking to to believe that free trade will continue, that he'll be economically responsible. I mean he is a man for all occasions, but in the end, as people who know him best, they know that this guy rats out most of his friends. Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd know that and I don't think the Australian people can trust him and I think, frankly, the Australian people are starting to see through Bill Shorten.

So I don't think he can be trusted on borders. In fact I know he can't. I think there is another aspect to this which I think will become more apparent over the coming 12 months or so, and that is the movement of Anthony Albanese within the Labor Party.

It's clear to me that Bill Shorten is pandering to the Left of his Party because he's trying to stave off the movement by Anthony Albanese and Albanese was ready to move after the last election, but he does have a significant and growing support base within the Labor Party because they're concerned about the fact that whatever Bill Shorten does and says…

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

…but just on that Peter Dutton…

PETER DUTTON:

…he's not liked by the Australian public and I think the Labor Party is starting to worry about that to be honest.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

But just on that, do you accept though, that the reality of these things – and we've seen it, you've seen it up close for years now – the reality of these things around leadership and so on is that as long as Labor is ahead in the polls, the chances of what you're talking about transpiring is very low. Whereas on the Government side, the longer that your side of politics continues to trail in the polls, the more likely it is that instability rises and slowly bubbles to the surface?
PETER DUTTON:

I think have a look at where Bill Shorten's numbers are on preferred prime minister. I mean that's at this point in time I think the interesting thing is to look at the perception of the leaders and who people believe to be the best Prime Minister.

There's a whole history within the Labor Party, in fact as we point out, I mean Bill Shorten was central to the original political assassination of Kevin Rudd and then of Julia Gillard and then of Kevin Rudd again and I think, in the end, people are seeing through Bill Shorten. As I say he's got, a different view for different audiences. He's trying to play to the inner‑city trendies so that he can protect Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese in seats where they're fighting against the Greens and he travels out into outer metropolitan areas across the country, trying to tell a different, stronger message on borders to those audiences.

I just think people have seen through it and I think in the end the 26 Members who stood up to oppose our border protection policy, demonstrate very clearly that Bill Shorten doesn't have a firm grasp on his Caucus and I think that is a very worrying sign for the Labor Party.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Let me go back if I can Minister to the whole issue around these laws that you're going to look to bring in by the sounds of it not this Parliamentary week, but in the final Parliamentary sitting week. Why are they important to the ability of the Government to do what it has managed to do successfully till now, whether people like or dislike the policy, that is stop the boats?

You've done it successfully without these laws. What is changing that makes these laws in your view important, such that you made the comment a moment ago to Paul Kelly that you think it's a very real problem that the boats could start up again if you don't get these laws passed?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Peter I think we need to understand the context here and the context is that there are 65 million people in the world who are displaced at the moment. There are 14,000 alone in Jakarta who would pay to get onto a boat to come tomorrow and people think that people smugglers have gone away. It's just not the case. You're seeing thousands of people drown on the Mediterranean. People moving across Europe. A million people that have moved into Germany. If people believe that the way open to Australia is an option for them or that the gate reopens again for them, they will flood into Jakarta, into Sri Lanka, into Vietnam and elsewhere to hop on boats to come to Australia. We've turned back 29 boats and we don't want a return to the days where the people smugglers have the upper hand.

I think the point that I would make is that people smugglers look at human beings as just another commodity. I mean at the moment they're moving gun parts or they're trading in sexual servitude or they're trading in drugs or whatever it might be. Human beings are just a commodity and when the market re‑emerges, so do they. So they haven't gone away and the US deal will be massaged by people smugglers to say, look, even though it doesn't apply to you or the Australian Government said it doesn't apply to you, you know it might, and Nauru's not that bad; you know if you stay there for two years, you'll go to the US. I mean we've been very clear that this deal only applies to those on Nauru and Manus, but these people are organised criminal syndicates and they will use this announcement to try and get people to pay money to get on the boats.

The second point that I'd make is that we have people that have been found not to be refugees. So these are economic asylum seekers. They're people that have come for an opportunity. They've paid their money to a people smuggler. They've been found not to be fleeing persecution. Not to be in fear of their lives. Understandably, they're just chasing a better financial outcome for them and their families. That's fine. But there are millions of people in that boat and those people believe that they will outlast our resolve and come to Australia and this message that they will not settle here if they've sought to come by boat, needs to be in black and white so that they don't listen to the advocates.

We've seen some of that reporting today where advocates are out there saying don't go to the US, don't accept the deal, and that's what we're up against every day. So it provides a further underscoring of the Government's strong position and for all of those reasons, that's why Labor needs to deal with it and the people smugglers have not gone away. This problem of border protection hasn't gone away and when we say we've stopped the boats, we have. We've turned 29 back and we've been successful in doing that, but this problem will be enduring for as long as there's no world peace and for as long as people will seek a better economic outcome for their families.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

We're talking to the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton. You're watching Sunday Agenda. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll continue the interview.

[commercial break]

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Welcome back. You're watching Sunday Agenda where Paul Kelly and I are speaking to the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton live from Brisbane. Thanks for your ongoing company.

I want to talk to you about 457s. The Labor Party sought to ramp this issue up during the week. It turns out that the Government were planning changes on that, that had been gazetted in advance of the rhetoric that was coming from Bill Shorten. Why are changes needed to the 457 structure at the moment? Is it driven by changed economic circumstances?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Peter, this was a massive own goal by Bill Shorten during the week because, as I said before, he sought to use the 457 visa issue to distract from their division on border policy, but as it turns out, when Mr Shorten was the Employment Minister in the Gillard Government, he was handing them out like confetti. There was a massive increase under Bill Shorten's time in the 457 numbers and then he tried to spin it to say, well, it was all in regard to the mining boom – well actually as it turned out, most of them issued during that period of time went to people in Sydney and Melbourne – and I just think it again just showed that he was shonky and was trying to put out a line which he knew not to be true, but got caught out on.

So we had tightened up the 457 arrangement because when we came to Government we found that there were some problems. For example, some employees were paying employers for the visa arrangement. We've stamped that out, made that a criminal offence. We've tightened up the arrangements around the advertising process and the way in which the employer must engage, try and engage an Australian worker to fill that job before they can pursue the 457 option.

So I just think, again, it shows that Labor's sort of, you know, crossing over each side of these issues. But we have tightened it up and I think that's now a better system than when it was during Mr Shorten's time as Employment Minister.

PAUL KELLY:

Minister if we look at the overall numbers for 457 visas at the present time, do you think the numbers are about right? Or do you think that they should be further reduced?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Paul the number should be that which reflects the demand within the economy that can't be met by Australian workers. I mean you hear lots of stories from tourist operators in Darwin or Cairns, for example, where they just can't get Australian workers to fill the jobs and in the end it costs more to employ somebody under a 457 visa.

What is an unacceptable position is if jobs are being filled by workers from overseas that can be filled by Australian workers and we want to encourage the employment of Australian workers first – I mean that's the whole idea of the 457 programme – it preconditions that engagement, hopefully that outcome, but if workers from Australia can't be found, then, we can't have jobs going unfilled because we lose economic productivity. So as long as we're meeting the objectives and the guidelines of the programme, then the numbers will be where they need to be.

We've got to have a strong integrity around the programme. We've done that. We've tightened it up from Labor's day and there are lots of State Governments involved in bringing people in 457s into the health system, for example. So there are lots of different components to it, but we need to make sure that Australians are engaged, are employed, but if they're not available for those jobs, then we can't have businesses closing their doors or dismissing other employees because their business is not viable, and particularly in markets where it's difficult to get local engagement, we need to work with those employers because it helps the overall productivity of the economy.

PAUL KELLY:

Well what's your response to the claims made by Bill Shorten that this scheme is turning into a rort? That employers are exploiting it? That Australian wages and conditions are being undermined by the operation of this system?

PETER DUTTON:

Well I mean show us the money. Let him put the evidence on the table instead of making, you know, these grabs at press conferences and then trying to move on to the next topic. Bill Shorten got caught out this week. Let's be very frank about it. Bill Shorten was lying and he got caught out and he tried to create a distraction away from the division on the boat and immigration and border protection policy issue. He tried to distract with a conversation about 457s and he got caught out. He's back‑pedalling at a million miles an hour. I understand that. But if he's got evidence, bring it forward, because we will prosecute people who are acting outside of the law. We do on a regular basis investigate matters where there are claims of fraud or illegality. We will investigate those matters. But if Bill Shorten is making these claims, let him put the evidence on the table.

PAUL KELLY:

I wanted to ask you, as Immigration Minister, about the overall size of the immigration programme. We've seen in the United States, Donald Trump clearly taking a very strong stand against current United States immigration levels. Do you think as Minister that the overall mainstream immigration intake is about right? Or will the Government review this and make changes?

PETER DUTTON:

Well Paul the driving objective for us is to have our numbers at a level which will help our economy grow, that will be in the long‑term interests of this country. We are among the top three countries in the world in terms of the numbers, even in real terms but certainly on a per capita basis, of refugees and people who come through the humanitarian programme. So we're generous in that sense. But the overall net migration figure is around about 200,000. We need to monitor on a yearly basis what the economy's doing. We need to make sure that we're continuing to address the issue around the ageing of our population and the cost that will come with that – so in terms of the age demographic that we're inviting to be part of the Australian community – but this country has been built on migration and there are many periods through our history where we've encouraged people to come, and at other times, the numbers have been wound back.

During the Howard years, the numbers were lower than what they are now and there was a real tweaking of the policy so that it went to a focus on skills over other aspects of the programme – so about two‑thirds of the programme now is skills‑based – and we need to have a look at the people that we're bringing in, making sure that those standards are high enough, that people are going to be contributing, that they're not going to be drawing on welfare and the health system. There are lots of demands on infrastructure around the country.

So I think this is really a live issue and I think we look at it and act in what is going to be in our immediate but long‑term national interest as well and that's the approach that I take and we look at that on that basis each year.

PAUL KELLY:

Ok, now I assume from that answer that what you're saying is we'll just continue the normal Australian approach, an assessment to the overall immigration programme, that we're not going to be swayed by Trumpism in America. Is that correct?

PETER DUTTON:

I don't see it in that context. Any of these discussions, Paul, on any of these public policy matters in the end, we act in our national interest – whether it's in terms of the US alliance, whether it's in terms of our relationship on borders or defence matters, economic matters – the first and principal objective of this Government is to act in our national interests.

That's the President's and the President‑elect's objective and criteria for their decision making as well. I mean they will act in their national interest. President Trump will act in the US national interest and we will work very closely on issues, but in terms of our migration policy, we will do what's in the best interests of our country and that will be the guiding force for us and I don't think people would expect any different to that.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

How regularly is the list of what constitutes skilled migration that we need in this country updated and looked at? So for example I know at the moment it includes teachers, yet we have a surplus of people studying education at universities, many of whom can't find jobs as teachers when they finish. I mean, is this looked at closely enough do you think or is that something that could be done a little more closely?

PETER DUTTON:

Peter it's topical. So we're having a look at it right now and I think it will be condensed. When Chris Bowen was in the Gillard Government, as a Minister in the Gillard Government, it was expanded out quite dramatically and the difficulty of course is to try and get the balance right.

So in some parts of the country it is very difficult to get a particular worker, say in hospitality or a doctor, whatever the classification might be, but in other parts of the country there is an abundance, you're right, and most people will want to work in capital cities or close to capital cities. It is very hard to get people in regional areas; some regional areas, where there's been a mining downturn, it's very hard to fill vacancies and there's no demand for people because Australian workers will fill those jobs.

So it's a different picture across the country and we need to respond accordingly. That's the nuance that we try and provide for, but I think the list at the moment is expansive and I think we'll condense it and that work has already been under way for some time and we'll have a look at that very soon.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Just before we let you go, just a couple of other issues I just wanted to get your view on. So something like, for example, same‑sex marriage, the plebiscite was defeated in the last Parliamentary sitting period, albeit it narrowly, in the Senate. What's the Government's plan from here? Is it yet to be looked at by Cabinet? Does the Party Room have to have a consideration on this, whether you bring a plebiscite back in 2017 for example? Or is your view until the crossbenches and or the Opposition come to us with an alternative that we can consider, we did our best, we tried to implement our election mandate on this and were thwarted?

PETER DUTTON:

Well you're right Peter. I mean we took our policy to the last election. We weren't able to get the plebiscite up and that was our policy and our future policy is a decision of our Party Room and of the leadership of the Cabinet and that can be dealt with in due course. But obviously we took the plebiscite to the Parliament. It was defeated. I think that's a pity because I think a significant social change like that deserves the imprimatur of the majority of Australians. I think it gives a significant public policy change a greater legitimacy in its implementation, but ultimately the Parliament's made a call on that and if there's to be a change, it's an issue for the Party Room and for the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, to resolve.

PAUL KELLY:

Minister, is it your view that Gillian Triggs, the President of the Human Rights Commission, should resign?

PETER DUTTON:

I've been very clear about my position on that Paul over a long period of time. I think it's incumbent upon people in these high offices to do the right thing by the office and to not diminish the office. I've been very clear about this Labor appointment of Ms Triggs and as the Prime Minister has advised, we won't be renewing her in the subsequent term – which I think is a good outcome – and Ms Triggs will make her own decision in due course, but I've been very clear and critical in the past.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous in this country that a cartoonist in one of our publications, our daily publications, can be raked over the coals in the way that Bill Leak has. I think the university students at QUT having to pay go‑away money and literally hundreds of other cases where people have paid go‑away money when some of these actions have been brought against them, in a similar way, frankly, that some small businesses have to when unions are trying to run them into the ground, I just think it's unacceptable and I don't think the Australian public support that either. I think the Prime Minister's been very wise to have this issue looked at, the issue of 18C looked at by the committee to look at whether some changes might be necessary. I just think it is unacceptable that we would impinge on free speech the way that we have with Bill Leak and I think Ms Triggs has a lot to answer for in that regard.

PAUL KELLY:

Well, I assume from the answer you've just given, which is a particularly strong answer on the merit of the issue, that you would like to see some change, some legislative change to 18C?

PETER DUTTON:

Paul, my position is that of the Cabinet position, that is that we've asked the committee to have a look at it. Ian Goodenough, who is an excellent Member from WA, is chairing that committee. He will look at the options, both in terms of procedure and the 18C black‑letter law, as it's currently written and then the committee will make recommendations in relation to it. But I think the fact that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet's taken a decision to put it off to that committee indicates that we do believe it's timely for it to be looked at and revised and I think Mr Goodenough will do an exceptional job in contemplating the pros and cons and come back to us in due course with his recommendations.

PAUL KELLY:

Well, I'd like to just ask you about this, just a more general question about the politics of this. Do you think that the politics as such, that it's possible to amend 18C successfully in a political sense, without the Government incurring a lot of electoral damage?

PETER DUTTON:

Paul, I don't have any comment to make in relation to the politics of it. I mean it's not within my portfolio. It's not something that I want to comment on beyond the Cabinet decision and I think what's most important here is to get the policy right and if you get the policy right, as Keating and others have famously said over a long period of time, then the politics will follow and I think the important thing here is the principle and the policy.

The policy at the moment as it operates that would allow Bill Leak to get into the trouble that he has is I think evidence enough that it needs to be looked at. That's the decision that's been taken and we'll look forward to the report from Mr Goodenough.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Raising Paul Keating is the perfect segue into our next segment. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton we appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us this morning.

PETER DUTTON:

Thanks, both, very much.

[ends]