Subjects: Labor ready to repeat border disasters; US agreement; 501 Character Cancellations; Outlaw motorcycle gang members; Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Bill Shorten's lack of leadership.
E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..
PETER DUTTON:
I just want to make a couple of comments in relation to a very important matter, that is over the last couple of days Labor has sided now twice with the Greens in relation to motions in the Senate which have made our community less safe and have made our borders less secure.
It's obvious that for whatever reason they've done a deal with the Greens in the Senate – I don't know whether it relates to citizenship or other issues – but there has to be some logic as to why Labor would move a motion that dictates people be sent to New Zealand knowing that New Zealand is the only country in the world – not even the United States, none of our other Five Eyes partners – have the ability to send their citizens to our country without a visa.
So New Zealand citizens have preferential treatment. They are the only country in the world where you have an as of right visa on arrival arrangement with a 444 visa. Even people coming from the United States, the United Kingdom or Canada must have a visa before they hop on the plane to come to our country and that's why we've been very clear about yes; wanting to send people as quickly as possible – to clean up Labor's mess on Manus – off to third countries, including the United States and I'm pleased to say that more people will move from Manus and Nauru in the not too distant future under the US arrangement – so all of that continues.
So Labor's actions I think were dangerous because it sends a very clear signal that they are dismantling their policy in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders – we saw what happened when they did that last time – but there is another motion that they have sided with the Greens in the last 24 hours to support; a disallowance motion which addresses a key aspect of a recommendation out of the Lindt Cafe inquiry and that is in relation to the identity; the Man Monis arrangement that people will remember very well where there were multiple identities used.
What we sought to do as part of this regulation was to clamp down on those situations directly in response to the Lindt Cafe recommendations. Now, I don't think Labor realise that. I think they've just pulled this stunt in the Senate – as I say for what reason I don't know – but there are serious consequences and Mr Neumann clearly didn't understand what he was doing in instructing his Senators to support the Greens in disallowing this particular regulation.
I think Mr Shorten needs to come out and explain that today. I think Mr Shorten's got a lot of explaining to do today. It's clear that Mr Shorten has now lied to the Australian people on a dozen occasions – if not more – not only relation to Sam Dastyari, not only in relation to citizenship matters more generally, but most obviously now in relation to David Feeney; another factional ally. If you look at the Shorten political family tree, it's littered with all of these factional allies, including Dastyari, Keneally, O'Farrell, all of these people and this is a very difficult situation for Mr Shorten to explain.
Now, people have made their declarations. We take at face value the declarations that they've made, but it is clear that Mr Shorten needs to show the leadership and stop the cover ups of people in the Labor Party. It's clear to all of us that Mr Shorten has a lot of explaining to do and he should get on with referring these people to the High Court, as we've done over the course of the last month or so because the Australian public want this issue resolved and the longer Mr Shorten runs this protection racket and the longer he lies to the Australian people, the less faith people will have in Bill Shorten.
Any questions?
QUESTION:
Mr Dutton, just briefly on Nauru specifically. Can you confirm that we're going to see something in the order of 200 or perhaps even 300 people resettled in the US from Nauru and PNG before Christmas?
PETER DUTTON:
I don't think we'll see numbers of that order, but obviously there have been some hand downs in Nauru, there'll be some hand downs in PNG as well – both positives and negatives in Nauru – I'm hoping that there can be an uplift as soon as possible, but that's an issue for the United States, but I don't think you'll see numbers quite as high as that.
There will be – on top of the 54 that have already departed – a number who will go and the interviews continue, the background checks and all of that process that the United States is involved in continues. There's been no pushback from the US at all in relation to the screening process and the uplift of those people. So let's wait and see what happens.
QUESTION:
Is it right that some people on Nauru, some men whose families I think are in Australia for whatever reason, medical reasons, are being told they have to sever ties to their family if they want to take up resettlement in the US?
PETER DUTTON:
Well we've been very clear about people that have received medical advice who are here in Australia; that is that they need to return to Nauru or back to their country of origin if they've been found not to be refugees.
We're a generous country. We've provided significant medical support for a number of people. We've had a number of people who have sought to come for terminations of their pregnancy; once they arrive they decide that they don't want the termination and we're injuncted and they can't go back to Nauru.
So look, there are all sorts of complications in relation to some of these cases, but it was the reality for people on Nauru – this was the edict of the Nauruan Government – that if people left Nauru and they came to Australia then consideration of their file would be suspended until they'd returned back to Nauru. So it depends on the individual circumstances.
QUESTION:
Minister on the issue of Dusty Martin's dad Shane; is it now the case that the Government admits it's got it wrong? Is there an apology? What happens there?
PETER DUTTON:
Well just to provide a couple of points and obviously this is a matter that's still before the court and I'm very respectful of that process – the matter's been adjourned I think until the 19th as I recall – look, there are plenty of bikies around the country that are involved in outlaw motorcycle gangs, who are the biggest distributors of amphetamine – you read these tragic stories of kids that have been addicted to ice and families that have been destroyed, overdoses etc – the bikies are at the centre of all of that harm and nobody is bleating about the other 150 or so bikies that we've cancelled the visas of. People have got an interest in Mr Martin because he's got an incredibly talented son and a famous Victorian as a footy player down there. So I think people can put all of that emotion to one side.
There is a court case at the moment, in part – in significant part as I'm advised – it hinges on whether or not there was the use of the wording effectively – and I'm paraphrasing here – that Mr Martin was or is a member of an organised criminal group – that's the essence of the argument.
Now, there needs to be a declaration made one way or the other, as opposed to just relying on that section without declaring whether it is or was. So it's a technical legal aspect. It doesn't change my mind in relation to the evidence that I've seen, the intelligence that is available, the information that's publicly available in relation to Mr Martin. I don't believe that he is of good character and I've been very determined to go through every fact in relation to the Martin case.
So even if the point is conceded, the technical point is conceded in the court case, Mr Martin doesn't hold a valid visa to come to Australia and obviously he's offshore at the moment.
Now, as I'm advised it may well be available to him to apply for a visa and then I would have to make a decision about whether or not I believe that he satisfies the character test before that visa would be issued.
I don't want to comment further in relation to matters that are before the court, but the hype around that he'll be back before Christmas and the rest of it, you can draw your own conclusions about that.
QUESTION:
There is a possibility that he may come to Australia?
PETER DUTTON:
I've been clear about my judgement in relation to Mr Martin; he was a president of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang, the Rebels have been involved in distribution of drugs, extortion, robbery, all sorts of criminal activities and I've seen the intelligence information in relation to Mr Martin. I have considered his character in relation to his previous application and I have been very definite in the decision that I've made that he does not meet the character test in the decisions that I've made.
Now as I say, people offshore can apply for visas and the legal technicality can be discussed in the court, those legal options are available to people, but I've been as clear as I can be given that the matter's before the court at the moment.
QUESTION:
Could I just on same-sex marriage, the US Supreme Court is now looking at striking a balance between a Colorado baker's right to freedom of speech and the couple's right to be protected from discrimination. Does the Australian legislation strike the right balance on these issues?
PETER DUTTON:
Well obviously there are differences, particularly in the United States example or even the UK example, in terms of the constitutional or the enshrined rights within both of those jurisdictions compared to Australia. So they're different legal systems and there are different protections and measures in place.
I've argued that we don't want to frustrate the passage of the Bill and nobody is of a mind to do that, but we do believe that there are sensible protections that need to be put in place. As John Howard I think said – as many have obviously observed over the years – we're governed by arithmetic in this place. On a good day in the Lower House we have a one seat majority and my judgement is, even with good intent, it will be impossible to get those amendments up because Labor – whilst they're offering a free vote at some point in relation to this issue – they've now decided that their Members can't even support, on a free vote basis, amendments. I think that's quite shameful, but it means that those protections won't be put in place in this Bill and I think the Prime Minister's wisely put in place an arrangement, chaired by Philip Ruddock, which will look at whether or not there are adequate protections.
It may be that over the course of the next couple of months there's a particular case or an example that people could point to that may be a case study about whether or not we've got the balances right, around the protections, and that can all be considered as part of the Ruddock process.
QUESTION:
Does that view extend to Tony Abbott's [inaudible] amendment, is that…do you think that's not going to get up tonight?
PETER DUTTON:
I don't think it's got any chance of getting up Phil, I think that's the reality of the numbers and again, I've spoken to lots of people on our side, including Tony and others who don't have any intention of ignoring the vote, the outcome of the plebiscite, no intention of frustrating or delaying the process. The same-sex marriage Bill will pass the Parliament this week – there's no doubt in my mind about that – but we do need to have a sensible mature discussion around whether we can get those appropriate balances in place.
I mean this debate for me has never been about homophobia, it's never been about denying the love in a same-sex relationship, never been about discriminating on any basis. The question though is; we need to get the balances right in terms of the protections for those people who have fundamental beliefs based on religion or otherwise and I think if we can do that, out of the shadow of same-sex marriage, then I think there will be people, including on the Labor side and including frankly, many gay couples who would support proper protections in place that don't discriminate against individuals, but nonetheless allow people to express their view.
There are some people on the Left who have used the issue of same-sex marriage as just another political steppingstone for them on an ideological path that I don't think the Australian public would agree with. So I think in the cold light of day at some point in the new year, informed by the Ruddock process, there'll be another debate about whether these balances are there.
QUESTION:
Do you personally think a baker such as Jack Phillips should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for gay couples for his own personal...
PETER DUTTON:
…well if you don't mind, I won't comment in relation to a US case because I don't…I'm not sitting on the case, I haven't seen all of the facts.
QUESTION:
Okay, a person in a similar situation in Australia…
PETER DUTTON:
Look, I've said that I don't support discrimination. I don't want to see a situation also though where people don't have the ability to express their own views. As I say, it's not designed to frustrate this process, delay the passage of the Bill, but there are legitimate people, there are scholars in this country who have expressed views on both sides and I think we should be mature enough to have a debate.
What I don't want to see in this country is where people are shouted down online or that companies use their iconic brands to push opinion one way or the other. I want people to have their say, whether I agree with it or not, whether others agree with it or not, I think people should have their say and we should have a civil discussion around those issues and I think that can take place in the new year.
QUESTION:
Minister, on Nauru and Manus Island, just once more on the US the deal, that 1,250 cap that's been characterised by some as soft, rather than a hard cap. Have there been any recent discussions with US officials about whether more than 1,250 maybe have to go to US?
PETER DUTTON:
No, no there's not.
QUESTION:
Minister, just on that can I just add to that?
PETER DUTTON:
Sure.
QUESTION:
We've heard about progress being made on that. What about the situation with Australia's deal to take people from the camps in Costa Rica; where has that progressed? Where are we up to on that?
PETER DUTTON:
I don't have any comment to make in relation to that at the moment. Obviously we're working with the US and we're looking at individual cases and at some stage I'll make a statement around that, but at the moment our real effort is on working with the United States so that we can get the next tranche out because I didn't put people on Manus Island, I don't want people on Manus Island, I want people off as quickly as possible. It's alright for people to say; oh well put yourself in the shoes of people on Manus Island. Well, I also put myself in the shoes of the 1,200 people who drowned at sea, I don't want to see that happen again and it's very clear to me on the expert advice, all of the information available to me, if we bring people from Manus Island to Australia tomorrow – as people like Kristina Keneally advocate – then we will see boats restart, we will see women and children drowning at sea again and this Government is not going to allow that to happen.
QUESTION:
But just to clarify, has anyone been processed, has anyone arrived under that agreement?
PETER DUTTON:
Obviously we've entered into that agreement, we've spoken with the United States about a number of cases and I don't have any further comment to make.
QUESTION:
Are you aware of whether two Pakistani asylum seekers on Manus Island – I think they had negative determinations – have been put into jail?
PETER DUTTON:
I don't have that information.
QUESTION:
George Brandis has said that you'll be sworn in as Home Affairs Minister on December 17. Is this accurate and will it be part of a broader reshuffle?
PETER DUTTON:
Obviously the Prime Minister made the announcement earlier this year in relation to the Home Affairs portfolio. There's a lot of work that's being undertaken through the taskforce and all of that work has come together very well. Essentially everything can be stood up in the Home Affairs portfolio, except for ASIO. You'll remember that we've separated the warrants power, which remains vested in the Attorney-General, and the operational function, if you like, is vested in the Home Affairs portfolio. So that element requires legislation which will be introduced into Parliament this week. It won't be voted on this week, but it can then be referred off to the committee and then we'll vote on that when we come back. So there'll be two stages. We had said that we'd given ourselves until June of next year. My judgement is that we will be able to stand up the first part of the Home Affairs portfolio this calendar year.
In terms of the finer detail of the arrangements etc, that's an issue for the Prime Minister.
I just take the opportunity to again thank all of those staff within the agencies who have been working closely together to stand it up. As we saw earlier this year when people tried to smuggle that device onto the A380, which would have killed hundreds of people on that flight had it been successful. There is a need for us to do all that we can in relation to pulling our security and intelligence agencies together in a concerted effort and I'm looking forward very much to the stand up of the Home Affairs portfolio.
QUESTION:
On dual citizenship; Labor's argument seems to be that these MPs knew that they had a British citizenship, they took the steps before nomination to begin the application to renounce their citizenship and therefore you can't be hostage to another country's bureaucratic process. As the Minister in charge of Australia's citizenship laws, do you have any sympathy for that argument?
PETER DUTTON:
Look, Bill Shorten has been running a protection racket. It's clear that he protects factional allies. He's done it with Dastyari, he does it again now with some of his colleagues.
Bill Shorten has lied to the Australian people now on at least a dozen occasions. He knew that he had a problem with some of his Members and he didn't refer them. That stands in contrast to the Prime Minister's approach to this matter. When he knew that he had a problem, the matters were referred to the High Court. The High Court has ruled. It was a fairly strict interpretation of the law, but we live by the law in this country, we adhere to the laws, the black letter law and the law decided upon in the courts, including the High Court.
Now, the Court has been very clear. It is clear that these people need to be referred to the High Court. Mr Shorten should take the initiative to do that when Parliament commences this morning. It's as plain as that. He can't pretend that there's no problem, as he's done over the previous weeks. This is now a huge problem for Bill Shorten. His leadership really is in question if he can't stand up to Dastyari.
You've got somebody like Dastyari, who's essentially a double agent in this country and yet Bill Shorten still allows him to remain in the Senate. How can you go to the Australian people wanting to be prime minister of this country if you know that people in your own ranks are breaking the law or are involved in questionable practices?
This is a question for Mr Shorten and I don't know if he's out in front of the media today or if he's preparing to make a statement to the Parliament now, but he must because people don't see a credible character in Bill Shorten and this is a key defining issue in the Bennelong by-election. I think people in the Bennelong electorate will be looking at Bill Shorten now and absolutely determining in their own minds that he's not fit to be prime minister of this country.
QUESTION:
Are you confident no other MPs will be caught up?
PETER DUTTON:
As I said before, you take people at face value. People have made a declaration to the Parliament and that is a very serious undertaking. We don't mislead the Parliament because of the consequences. We check facts. If there's an error made in a question in Question Time, for example, then we correct the record at the first available opportunity.
So people take all of that very seriously and people have provided a declaration, they've given an undertaking to the Parliament and really that should be taken at face value.
Thanks very much.
[ends]
