PM: Good afternoon.
As the Minister for Home Affairs has advised, we have interdicted a suspected illegal entry vessel and the HMAS Pirie has responded to a distress call at sea. So, we have confronted two boats - one that has been interdicted, one that was in distress.
It's against this backdrop that I want to explain is a crystal clear way what happened in the Parliament yesterday and what Australia faces on border security.
Yesterday the Government commenced the debate on its amendments to the Migration Act. These amendments are necessary following the High Court case. Without these amendments no government could process asylum seekers offshore.
When faced with the Government's amendments, Mr Abbott moved - or has indicated he will move - an amendment to the legislation which would confine the options of government, this Government and governments in the future, in relation to offshore processing. Specifically, it would prevent the Government putting into operation the arrangement that we have made with Malaysia.
During the course of yesterday's Parliamentary proceedings it became obvious from statements made in the parliament and beyond the parliament during the course of those proceedings that Mr Abbott's amendment will fail in the Parliament. Mr Bandt, Mr Wilkie, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor have now indicated they will vote against the Leader of the Opposition's amendment and the Government will of course vote against the Leader of the Opposition's amendment.
This means as we left the Parliament last night it was crystal clear that when the Parliament resumes and this debate resumes that Mr Abbott's amendment will fail.
That means the choices in the Parliament are also very clear. There are only two: passing the Government's legislation and enabling executive government to make appropriate arrangements for offshore processing of asylum seekers; or seeing that legislation fail, in which case this Government and governments in the future would have no option except to process asylum seekers onshore. That is the choice.
Now, there have been many weeks now of debate and discussion about the merits of various options for the processing of asylum seekers. That debate in many ways is now at one side because the proposition that will come to the parliament once Mr Abbott's amendment fails is a very clear one: either government has the power to act - or it doesn't; either Australia can process offshore - or it can't; either the Government has the power to enter into the arrangement with Malaysia and put it into effect and future government has the power if it chooses and is elected to implement a policy in relation to Nauru - or no government has that power. That is the choice before the parliament.
There are now two weeks before the parliamentary session resumes. In those two weeks I believe every Member of the Parliament should reflect on the clarity of this position. I believe the Leader of the Opposition should reflect, and so should every member of the Liberal Party and the National Party.
This is not a time for Mr Abbott to simply press the ‘no' button again and just say no.
This is a time for Mr Abbott to reflect on whether or not he will use his vote and the votes of the Liberal and National Parties in the parliament to prevent this Government or governments in the future from having the power to process asylum seekers offshore.
He has no hope of his amendment getting up, so that is the only choice that he is making.
The right to vote in Parliament comes with responsibilities and when you exercise your vote then you need to be responsible for the consequences.
If Mr Abbott exercises his vote so no government has the power to process asylum seekers offshore, then that comes with a responsibility. It comes with the responsibility of Mr Abbott saying to the Australian people very clearly that when he has said that he wants to stop the boats, that wasn't true, and whenever he says it in the future it should never be taken as being true by the Australian people.
The right to vote in this Parliament comes with responsibility, and if Mr Abbott ends the ability of government to process offshore, then he must also take the responsibility for the consequences that lack of resolve will send to people smugglers. They will be watching this parliament to see what resolve this parliament has. If they see no resolve then that means that we will see more boats and Mr Abbot will need to take the responsibility for that.
Mr Abbott will also to take the responsibility for the expansion of detention and processing in this country. If he has exercised his vote so it is not possible to process offshore, then he takes the responsibility for onshore processing arrangements being extended.
So, we need to very clear after yesterday's parliamentary debate and after the circumstances of these two boats.
Mr Abbott is frequently heard to say that he wants to stop the boats. Today I believe Mr Abbott should be reflecting on whether those words have ever had any meaning to him or and whether they will have any meaning to him in the future. He will be judged on how he casts his vote in the House of Representatives when it resumes.
I'm happy to take questions.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, hasn't it always been the case with parliamentary democracy that absent a majority in both houses, a government has never had a right to automatically get its legislation through both houses of parliament unchanged and without negotiation? Are you prepared to negotiate at all, as governments in the past have had to do on every Bill they've put through in a minority situation?
PM: You seem to have forgotten that I sat in my office on Monday with the Leader of the Opposition. I gave him amendments, amendments that had reflected and been amended because he'd expressed concerns over the weekend following a legal briefing we'd made available to him.
So, let's go through the course of dealing here. I've been in Opposition and I don't remember too many circumstances where a government extended such courtesy to the Opposition. He asked for a briefing from the Government's experts - he was given that briefing, and every day since he has made statements that are untrue against what he was told in that briefing.
He asked for a legal briefing - he was given that legal briefing. He expressed some concerns following that legal briefing, and the Government changed the amendments that it was going to present to the parliament.
When I gave him those amendments in my private meeting with him he said to me he would consider them. I assumed that meant he would consider them in good faith. We had a discussion about the timeframes in which he was likely to come back to me. The first I heard that he had rejected those amendments was when he chose to give a media conference about it.
So the Government has at all stages acting in good faith here and the legislation we have before the parliament represents common ground; represents common ground in the sense that it would enable Mr Abbott, if he was ever Prime Minister of this country, to implement his preferred plan.
I mean, one of the grand ironies here is Mr Abbott's proposed course of action would deny him the power he would need to process asylum seekers on Nauru if he were ever Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister is it your understanding that the legislation can pass the lower house if the Oakeshott amendment is attached to it?
PM: There is speculation in today's newspapers and I understand that this is inevitable about the position of the crossbenchers on the legislation and we are still in discussion with some people, but we only get to that question if Mr Abbott walks into the Parliament to trash the national interest and to end offshore processing. We only get into that position if Mr Abbott's view is that there should be more boats.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you're talking about responsibility here, so who takes responsibility for these two boats today?
PM: Well, let's be very clear about where I think responsibility lies. If the parliament, when it resumes, doesn't send a message of resolve to people smugglers, if Mr Abbott prevents us sending that message of resolve, then that will send a message up the people smuggling pipeline to send more boats and that will be Mr Abbott's responsibility.
Second, if Mr Abbott denies the national interest and denies government, this Government and future governments, the power to process offshore, then he will have to take the responsibility for the onshore detention network and processing expanding. We had been advised post the High Court case that people smugglers would be watching, they would be waiting, they would be assessing what was going to happen next in Australia - and we've seen these two boats.
Yes, Sid.
JOURNALIST: Why didn't you put the vote last night, Prime Minister? We've got two weeks now of limbo and people smugglers arriving, so why not put it last night?
PM: Well, the Government did want to get on with the debate with all due expedition. The Opposition had indicated earlier in the week it was prepared to do that. It became apparent during the course of yesterday that that was yet another false set of words from the Opposition and they had no meaning. So, in those circumstances the Government determined that the best course was to have the debate when parliament resumes, rather than perhaps trying to get people to sit all night and for days to deal with the legislation.
JOURNALIST: Did you have the numbers last night?
PM: Well, as is clear on the public record, the House of Representatives will defeat Mr Abbott's amendment. So, the question before the Parliament becomes, ‘will the legislation pass', that's right, and that question can only be answered in the House of Representatives when we vote and when we see whether or not Mr Abbott will be exercising his vote and the vote of the Liberal Party and the National Party to deny this Government and future governments the ability to process offshore.
JOURNALIST: But did you have the numbers last night?
PM: I'm in discussion with the crossbenchers and those discussions will continue, but to be frank, why should Independent members of this Parliament shoulder a responsibility when Mr Abbott, as the alternate Prime Minister of this country, has absolutely none that he is prepared to shoulder?
I'm asking the crossbenchers about those things and having good conversations with them, they are people concerned about the national interest, but doesn't that just beg the question that we're only in that position because the alternate Prime Minister of this country, having campaigned on four slogans in the last election, one of which was ‘stop the boats', is now saying to the Australian people he'll do anything he can, apparently, to ensure that there are more boats.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you confident that every member of the Labor Party will vote for your legislation, with no-one abstaining, and on a second point, your criticisms of Mr Abbott, you don't make them of Bob Brown. Why isn't it in the national interest for Bob Brown to give Executive Government the power it needs?
PM: Let's be clear - it's in the interest of every member of the House of Representatives, and that's what we're talking about at this point, to vote for this legislation. I'd be urging every member of the House of Representatives to do that, Mr Bandt and every other member of the House of Representatives.
I'm also very realistic that Senator Brown's policy position is that he supports onshore processing, so I presume he will vote in accordance with that policy position. Mr Abbott's policy position is that he supports offshore processing and he's going to use his vote in this parliament to destroy the ability for all time for this nation to process asylum seekers offshore.
It therefore seems to me most logical to say to the person who has got a policy of offshore processing that they should exercise the responsibility of voting to give government the ability to process offshore.
I'd also say this: in terms of national responsibility I do believe the alternate Prime Minister is in a different position from Senator Brown. I do believe that he has more responsibility on his shoulders. Now if it's the position of Tony Abbott that he views himself to be Senator Brown's equivalent, or perhaps in terms of responsibilities something less than Senator Brown, then he should make that very clear to the Australian people.
JOURNALIST: Just on Phil's question on abstentions?
PM: Labor Members of the House of Representatives will vote in accordance with the Labor Caucus position. People will vote in accordance with the Labor Caucus position.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if I may, you've sat opposite Tony Abbott in various guises for many years in this parliament. You seem to be, in what you're saying today, acting in the belief that he is still in some way persuadable. What gives you any confidence from what you know of this man that he is for turning now?
PM: Well, I believe this is for more than Tony Abbott. When we have this vote in the parliament every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the National Party will be required to record their vote. This includes many people who over the years have advocated offshore processing. For example, it includes Phillip Ruddock. What is being proposed now is that Phillip Ruddock would walk into the parliament and vote to end for all time the ability of our nation to process asylum seekers offshore - Phillip Ruddock, who worked for years on offshore processing.
I believe it's not just Tony Abbott who needs to think on these questions: it's every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the National Party who will have their vote recorded for all time.
It's also every person who supports those political parties in this country. Many active members of the Liberal and National Party would have a very determined view about border security. Well, this is an opportunity for them to make their voices heard to their Liberal and National Party representatives.
Dennis.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) common ground and the fact that Mr Abbott's position will rule out offshore processing. Isn't the choice between the Government's Act and Mr Abbott's amendments, both include offshore processing but they had different destinations - Malaysia and Nauru. What's the practical effect of accepting Mr Abbott's amendment and continuing offshore processing but effectively in Nauru?
PM: Firstly, Mr Abbott's amendment is doomed to fail. By the time we vote on the legislation, Mr Abbott's amendment will have failed in the House of Representatives. Mr Abbott doesn't have that as political cover any more. He should stop pretending to the Australian people that he does.
The vote he will face in the House of Representatives is yes, no, offshore processing. That's it. No nuances, no cover up, no spin, no slogans - yes, no, off-shore processing.
Should Mr Abbott's amendment in a different world be carried by the parliament, and it won't be, but should it be carried by the parliament it would mean more boats.
Yes, Andrew.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) I know you don't like answering hypotheticals, but assuming it doesn't go through -
PM: -So you want me to assume the alternate Prime Minister of the country trashes the national interest? Yes?
JOURNALIST: How sustainable is it for you to run a political campaign where by every boat that arrives from here on is Tony Abbott's fault?
PM: It won't be a political campaign. It will be a matter of fact.
Yes?
JOURNALIST: What explanation, if any, have you sought from Kevin Rudd's supporters and from the Foreign Minister himself for the suggestions that his supporters are canvassing among the backbench to replace you with him?
PM: This was a Liberal distraction from a national interest question yesterday.
JOURNALIST: Have you sought any explanation from the Foreign Minister?
PM: Why would I bother seeking an explanation about a Liberal distraction?
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you talk about Tony Abbott taking responsibility, but shouldn't Kevin Rudd take some as well for ending offshore processing in the first place?
PM: Well, let's be clear about ending offshore processing.
Of course, the Government takes responsibilities for decisions it's made. When Nauru was closed there were people there who had been processed and were genuine refugees and needed to be re-settled and a number of them were re-settled in Australia and people had been re-settled in Australia from Nauru by the Howard Government and some had been re-settled in Indonesia.
What that meant was that the message had gone to the people smugglers that if you end up being processed in Nauru then there's a fair chance that you'll get an opportunity to re-settle in Australia. That message had already gone up the people smuggling pipe-line.
Now, we are being told very clearly by the same experts who advised the Howard Government - people they trusted, people they relied on, people that they very directly dealt with - we are being told by the very same experts that Nauru does not send the same deterrence message. I don't think that in the face of that advice today you should make some assumption that somehow it would have continued to have sent a deterrence message when people smugglers knew that if you got processed there you had a fair chance of getting to Australia.
So, you're making an assumption that I think you need to think about given the clarity of the expert advice today that Nauru does not have a deterrence message.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how concerned are you about the turmoil in the markets, the financial institutions, at the moment?
PM: We are seeing turmoil on international markets, you're right. Many Australians would be seeing that and would be concerned about it and I understand that it does make people concerned when they see that turmoil on international markets.
It's very important though, that people understand, even as they see that turmoil, that here in Australia the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Whether it's today or yesterday or the day before or whether it's tomorrow, whatever we see on international markets in the time in between, the fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong - low unemployment, low public debt, a strong banking system, growth, employment prospects, record terms of trade, hundreds of billions of dollars in the investment pipe-line.
So, if you go back 48 hours, if you go forward 48 hours, those fundamentals are there throughout. People should remember that even as they see this turmoil on international markets.
Phil.
JOURNALIST: In the letter that you co-authored with the other non-European members of the G20 to Sarkozy overnight you've warned that if they don't sort themselves out the contagion will spread. Are the fundamentals of our economy strong enough, do you believe, to withstand that, and what your fears have warned against?
PM: We are raising our voices to say that leaders in Europe need to resolve the sovereign debt questions that we have seen manifest in Europe. Clearly I had the opportunity to talk to the President of the European Commission about that when he visited here, and I believe it was important to make that point very clearly, too, by co-authoring this letter. So, the world is looking for Europe to show the leadership necessary to solve the difficulties there. The IMF during the course of this week has effectively made the same point.
But here in our economy, our exposure to Europe, whilst of course we're not immune - we're not immune from global economic events, we're not immune from the impacts that has on global growth - our growth is predominantly powered out of the growing region where we live and our trading partners like China, for example.
So we are a nation with strong economic fundamentals, the envy of the world. We do have strength and resilience even as we see these things in other parts of the world, but it would be better for the global economy if Europe could show the leadership necessary to resolve the difficulties there.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the leadership question, has anyone conveyed to you that you will be given until Christmas to turn the polls around and then the Caucus might have another look at that question, and can you understand why Labor backbenchers might be feeling really nervous about the way your leadership is at the moment?
PM: What I can understand is that there was a Liberal distraction yesterday. Tony Abbott didn't want the Australian people clearly understanding during yesterday's debate that he was proposing to exercise his votes in the Parliament in the certain knowledge that his amendment was going to be defeated to trash the national interest.
So yes, we saw a Liberal distraction campaign. I can understand that causes excitement and chatter amongst the parliamentary press gallery, but you wouldn't want to get confused between a Liberal distraction campaign and the realities.
The answer your question is no.
Thank you very much.