Subjects: Multi-agency operation; Manu Island; same-sex marriage plebiscite.
E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..
PETER DUTTON:
[start of recording]
…allegations and I'm advised that there's been one serving ABF officer who has been arrested as part of the Operation that people have seen over the course of the last couple of days in Sydney and obviously much further beyond. I'm also advised that there is a former Customs officer who has been arrested as part of the same Operation.
I want to apologise to all of the Australian Border Force officers for the alleged conduct of this one officer. This besmirches 5,500 officers who do a great job and the Government has put a lot of money into ACLEI to make sure that we can stamp out any corruption and like any law enforcement agency – whether it is the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police, Queensland, Victoria, wherever it might be – we have the same resolve to weed out those people that would do the wrong thing.
It just takes one bad apple and there's obviously been a significant effort in relation to this investigation and we've been very supportive over a long period of time in relation that investigation. It should serve as a very clear warning to other people who might be minded to involve themselves in activities which are against the law that there are serious consequences to pay for that and I make just one more comment; that is to congratulate the Australian Federal Police and all of the agencies, the hundreds of officers who have been working on this particular Operation for a long period of time.
Obviously the scourge of drugs in our society is well known. So whether people are involved in the manufacturing or distribution of drugs, there is a big effort and a continued effort to try and expose those people, arrest and prosecute those people.
JOURNALIST:
How hard is it to find them and weed them out? I know we heard in a Senate Committee the other week about the number of people who have cards on the docks and they don't necessarily hand them back once they have been accredited. How hard is it to find the rotten apples and to weed them out?
PETER DUTTON:
The fact is that there's been corruption on the ports since the time of white settlement in our country. If you go back and read the history of the Sydney docks and ports in Melbourne and whatnot, where there's been exchange of goods and money at ports, there has always been corruption; there always will be and our job is to weed it out.
This should serve as a very clear message to anybody who is involved in, at the fringes of, consorting with any sort of criminal behaviour, then they need to realise that in the 21st century it is impossible for these people to commit crimes and to get away with it.
So we are going to continue to put more money into the investigative arm, which is ACLEI, which obviously is a separate authority from the Australian Border Force and as I say, like any law enforcement agency, it is hard to find these individuals, but when we're made aware of allegations, they're fully investigated and if they're substantiated then people face significant consequences.
JOURNALIST:
Minister, a man on Manus Island under Australia's care died this week. Do you and the Government take responsibility for that?
PETER DUTTON:
As I have said there will be a coronial inquest and no doubt a PNG Police investigation, which I'm advised is already underway. So I'll leave that detail to the PNG authorities to comment on.
Obviously as I've stated to you on many occasions, I don't want people on Manus Island. I've set a close date of the 31st of October. I didn't put people on Manus Island. My responsibility is to clean up the mess that was left to us by Labor because they had put people on Manus Island.
The important thing is that we aren't adding to the numbers on Manus Island. We have brokered an arrangement, as you are well aware with the United States, to take people from Manus and Nauru and we are doing that at the same time that we have stopped boats. That means that we are not adding to the numbers with new boat arrivals – bearing in mind at the peak of Labor's loss of control of our borders they were pulling a thousand people a week off boats and 1,200 people drowned at sea – we have not had one drowning under Operation Sovereign Borders and you know the hypocrisy expressed by Adam Bandt yesterday…he didn't ask one question of Labor in the House when 1,200 people, including men, women and children drowned at sea.
So we aren't going to take the hypocrisy of the Greens on this topic because they were complicit with the Labor Party when they set up for, not one, but 1,200 people to drown at sea. The loss of one life is one too many and I'm determined to get people off Manus and to do it in such a way that we don't restart boats and that remains the absolute resolve of this Government.
JOURNALIST:
Will the man's body be able to come to Australia for some kind of…
PETER DUTTON:
…I don't have any comment to make otherwise in relation to the issue.
JOURNALIST:
Just going back to these charges. The ABF has been under repeated scrutiny over the past few months. Do you think that this undermines Australians opinion of Border Force?
PETER DUTTON:
No. I think you've seen the Australian Border Force central to the investigation with the Australian Federal Police that has led to the great success with these raids over the last couple of days.
The Australian Border Force has 5,500 officers and like any law enforcement agency there will always be a very, very small corrupt element, but I've put that corrupt element on notice. I don't care whether they're within the ABF, within the Australian Federal Police, any agency across the Commonwealth, we have put additional resources into ACLEI, I've put additional resources into the professional standards unit within the Australian Border Force and we have led to the outcome here today of an officer being arrested. I put on notice, as I've said before and I'm very serious about this, I won't tolerate one instance of corruption. We have a very important job to do and we are not going to be distracted by rogue elements that act like criminals that we are supposed to be locking up.
So I can't be any clearer in relation to how strong my resolve is and how personally I feel about this because it besmirches the 5,500 good officers within the ABF and the Australian public should have full faith in the AFP, in the Australian Border Force, the work that they do every day, just as I do.
JOURNALIST:
Can I ask you about the postal plebiscite? In many ways you're the mastermind and you were the driving force from what seems behind the Government for this. Is it right that the Bill be circulated before the plebiscite takes place so that people understand full well what they are voting for with the yes or no campaign?
PETER DUTTON:
Well look, I think the important thing is that we are moving now to honour our election commitment that is that because we can't get a plebiscite through, even though Bill Shorten at one stage supported a plebiscite, we can't get the plebiscite through the Senate – that's been knocked back now on two occasions – so we move to the postal plebiscite.
I want to pay tribute to Malcolm Turnbull because he is honouring his election commitment in a way that for example Julia Gillard never did, which was the undoing of her Prime Ministership. So I think Malcolm Turnbull has shown the courage to deal with a very difficult issue and we need now to go through that process.
In terms of the process otherwise, it's an issue for Mathias Cormann who is the Acting Special Minister of State to talk through any of that detail.
I haven't made any public comment in relation to this issue. I've expressed my comments publicly before in relation to the issue, but now that that matter has been settled, I'm the Immigration Minister and the Minister for Border Protection and I just don't want to add to that.
JOURNALIST:
But Minister it is an idea that you pushed and now we find out that, you know, the Electoral Act won't apply, can't apply to this particular vote which means there won't be any of the normal rules against bribery, about campaign material having to be authorised. Is that concerning? I mean what might be put out there in this campaign?
PETER DUTTON:
No, I said this morning that the debate on both sides should be conducted in a respectful way. I condemn absolutely people who are on the fringes of this argument – whether they are on the Left or the Right – putting out garbage about children of gay couples and all of that is rightly condemned. It has no place in any debate in our country.
It needs to be a respectful debate and these people that dismiss the views of people with strongly held religious belief, people who don't believe in same-sex marriage that somehow their view is worth less than somebody who is strongly in favour of same-sex marriage is a nonsense.
People have legitimate views on both sides of this argument and the beauty of the postal plebiscite is that people will be able to have their say and for an important social change, my judgement is that people should have their say and that once the matter is resolved, it is obvious to all then the view of the Australian public.
JOURNALIST:
How much damage will be done if a large chunk of people refuse to vote and in effect had a protest vote and didn't vote? And would you have more authority if you had a couple of questions? Perhaps this spending $122 million would be an ideal opportunity to ask people about the Republic and a whole stack of other issues, if you really think this is a great way to proceed with democracy?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I'm not often quoting The Sydney Morning Herald, but Peter Hartcher quoted I think the 38 per cent figure out of France where 38 per cent of people had voted for President Macron. Nobody is suggesting that that was an illegitimate vote because of turnout at 38 per cent…
JOURNALIST:
…so 38 per cent of people is going to be a good result?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, I mean that's for others to judge. I think it's important for this plebiscite to take place because it is an important social change, if that's what happens at the end of the process, but people need to have their say and those…I don't care whether you are in favour or against gay marriage, you should be entitled to have your say and those that shout down one side or the other, really just demean themselves. So let's have a respectful debate and we'll know the results within a few months.
JOURNALIST:
It's all well and good to say that you want people to conduct this debate with civility, but if the Electoral Act doesn't apply, you don't really have any control over that do you?
PETER DUTTON:
Well as I say, people can make comments. We've got freedom of speech in this country. There are many communities; the Jewish community is one for example where there are hateful things said online about Jews or kids within Jewish families, whatever it is and it's distasteful. It is disrespectful and it is unacceptable across society any form of discrimination or those sorts of comments which are not found in any factor at all and don't have a place in our debate.
But there is freedom of speech. People can say what they want in our country, which is a great pillar of our democracy, but people need to be respectful, they need to be mindful of the views of others and I'm hoping that that's the way the debate will be conducted.
JOURNALIST:
Just on the turnout issue again. I've spoke to a couple of your colleagues who are pushing for change this week and they've said that if there is a low turnout that they may not respect the result, they may still push for a Private Members' Bill or to get same-sex marriage legalised in some other way if it comes back no, but there's a very low turnout. What do you say to them?
PETER DUTTON:
Well there are lots of hypotheticals in that. In terms of turning out, I think Mark Dreyfus tweeted yesterday I understand to say now is the time to get on with the campaign and I think that's what will happen on both sides, that's what we've predicted once a decision had been made, once a process had been put in place, both sides will quickly turn themselves to putting their respective cases and putting the case for people to vote in the plebiscite. That is a good thing because people should have their say.
We went to the election with an election commitment. Now we could quite easily be standing here with you asking me questions about why Malcolm Turnbull had broken his election promise. He hasn't. He honoured the election promise. That's what we took to the people and he has honoured that and full credit to him.
JOURNALIST:
Given the turnout rate in France, can you commit that if a similar turnout rate was to happen with this postal vote that you would trust the validity of that result?
PETER DUTTON:
As I say, it's a question for others that are involved in the process and the conduct of the postal plebiscite. I don't have any say in relation to…
JOURNALIST:
…do you support a yes or no question, is that what you support?
PETER DUTTON:
I've said that from my perspective I personally don't believe in the change. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I've held that view for a long period of time. Equally I've said because I have strongly advocated the democratic process here, that I will be bound by the outcome; that is that if the majority of Australians come back and say that they support the change, I will be voting in the Parliament in favour of the change in relation to same-sex marriage…
JOURNALIST:
Is that the case regardless of the turnout?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, because I think again the chicken littles out there will be proved wrong – as they were a month ago. I think people will now turn their efforts to turnout. I think that's important and I think at the end of this process, frankly, there will be greater legitimacy to change if change is to take place or people will have heard from the Australian public if it turns out that people are in a majority against the change and we respect that either way.
JOURNALIST:
But how will people know what they're voting for if the Bill isn't circulated before the postal plebiscite takes place?
PETER DUTTON:
No look in terms of this, now you've drawn me down a path where I said I wasn't going to comment, but…
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PETER DUTTON:
That is not right, but let me answer it this way; I think it is right that it is a Private Members' Bill at the end of the process. I don't think it should be a Government Bill and that's been the Cabinet decision and that's important for a couple of reasons because we have the ability for Members of Parliament, on both sides of this debate – as we saw with the David Fawcett process – able to construct a Bill – as we've seen with other conscience votes or free votes in the Parliament. There's a history of this where advocates and people that don't support the change are able to move amendments, are able to deal with issues that are important to them, that they want to see reflected in the Bill and those issues can be tested on the floor of the Parliament and not just in the House of Representatives, but in the Senate as well.
So there will be a process of compromise. I think that will provide ultimately with a stronger Bill. But the concept of a change to the definition if you like to support or to oppose same-sex marriage is the substantive issue that's to be dealt with in the postal plebiscite and that is what's being voted on. The minutia of the Bill will be determined at a later time.
JOURNALIST:
And just to be very clear, do you call on all your colleagues to respect the result of this vote no matter the turnout and no matter the result?
PETER DUTTON:
Of course I do. I want people to, as I say genuinely, I want people to engage respectfully in the process. I've been very genuine in terms of my involvement in this process and wanting to see us keep our election promise, to make sure that people had their say because it is an important social matter, where people as I say, for good reasons, understandable reasons, have views for and against and once we determine those views then the outcome should be respected by people.
People who say that 'look it's a non-binding vote' if there's a majority of people who support same-sex marriage then it somehow can't get through the Parliament, as I've explained and others in my positon have explained, we will be voting in favour of same-sex marriage if there is a majority out of the plebiscite and that does assure its passage through the Lower House.
I've been very clear publicly and privately about that being my position for a long period of time and that's not going to change.
Thank you.
[ends]
