Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) the Prime Minister Julia More now on of top story and

Gillard has urged Senators to

put politics aside when it

off shore processing of asylum considers the bill through low

seekers today. We are on the

verge of ending the impasse

which has prevented our country

processing asylum seekers off

shore. We are just one day away

from having a solution which

would enable us to better deal

with asylum seekers and to send

a clear message of deterrence

to people smugglers. I am

calling on each and every

Senator to accept that this is

now the only bill that can pass the parliament before the

parliament goes into the winter recess. That's the Prime Minister Julia

Minister Julia Gillard. Well,

for the Opposition's stance,

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey joins us now from Parliament

very much House. Good morning. Thank you

very much for your time. Why

did it take a second boat to

capsize in less than a week for

the Coalition to finally want

to come to some kind of

resolution on this matter?

Well, hang on, the Government

is the one that is in charge of

border protection. The

Government is the one in charge

of the policy. The government

is the one that reversed a

policy that worked to stop the

boats. We've offered on

numerous occasions a solution

for the Government. They

refused to accept it. It is not

our fault here, it is the fault

of a Government that is meant

to govern and yesterday we

offered further proposals which

instead the Government didn't the Government rejected and

even pick up their own bill

which Julia Gillard had

previously said to us we had to

support. She didn't put her own

legislation in the House, she

independent and the legislation relied on that of an

will fail today in the

Senate. Scott Morrison, your

immigration spokesman, on 7:30

on Tuesday night was pushed on

whether if the Government

adopted all of the Coalition'

policies, all of the Howard Government's policies, whether

in fact it would support it and

he basically said the

Government itself was the pull

factor. Does your party

maintain that stance? We want

the Government to adopt our

three pillar approach that

worked previously and will work

again. Firstly, to have off

shore processing. We've said

Nauru worked, and it did work

they should do it again.

Secondly, to have temporary

protection visas. That's hugely

important because even if

people do get to Australia they

are not guaranteed permanent

residency, and thirdly, where

possible to turn back the boats

the Government says Nauru won't

work. Now they're saying

they'll contemplate Nauru. The

fact was with Nauru that 40% of

the refugee applicants ended up

here, 30% ended up overseas in

another country and 30% ended

up going back to the countries

they claimed to come

from. Let's talk about Nauru

for a moment because when the

Howard Government proposed that

you were ready to cross the

floor because you didn't want

to see unaccompanied children

sent to a third country for

processing you eventually vote

would the Government because

Australians would be in charge

of the processing, do you aca

knowledge that it took too long

to process asylum seekers on

Nauru? Well, it takes too long

everywhere but if people

deliberately tear up their

papers or obfuscate about their

orig inating circumstances then

in a sense they contribute to

the time taken for the

processing of their

applications. Look, this is not

an easy process. We recognise

that. Tony Abbott yesterday

made a number of offers to the

Government that the Government

rejected and we stand by our -

we were the ones under the

Howard Government that started

the off shore processing, the

Pacific Solutions. We were the

ones that did it. Our policies

worked under John Howard but

also they were as humane as

they possibly could be in the

circumstances. What this

Government asking us to do is

to vote for bad policy. It's

asking us to vote for policy

that could see a child send

unaccompanied to Malaysia where

they have no protections at

all. That's what they're asking

us to support. Isn't that

exactly what would happen under

the Coalition if it's to turn

boats around when it's safe to do so, that they'd be sent back

to Indonesia which isn't a

signatory to the UN convention

unaccompanied minors on their and that could leave

own? No, that is where they

came from. That is where-

There's a difference f that's

they came from it's fine but

you can't send them to another

country? That is where the

journey started. They obviously have contacts in the place

where the journey started. How

will the Coalition go about

turning boats around if they're

coming directly from southern

India and Sri Lanka ask using

Ashmore Reef to try to get to

where we said where possible to ash more island? That's

turn the boats around, and

that's whiwe also say that they

should not be able to get, as

of right, to the Australian

mainland. The Government now

agrees with us that shower

shore should be in place.

They've come some way since

they reversed our policies but

the fact of the matter is that

you have a responsibility as a

legal guardian of people under

the age of 18 and children, we

have a legal responsibility to

ensure that those children have

an adequate level of protection

during the course of the

processing whilst they're in

our oversight and that's what

Nauru did, that's what Manus

Island did and that's what

Malaysia will not offer and

does not do. Mu laings -

Malaysia is a deal limited to

800 and already we've had 8,000

people since the Government

announced the Malaysia deal and

by the way it's a people swap,

like football cards, that we

4,000 send them 800 and they send us

4,000 so quite frankly y don't

see how this is good for Australia, but more importantly, even though I

think we sell our soul in inage

in this sort of behaviour when

we've got policies that have

worked in the past and should

be implemented for the future.

Can you be tough and humane at

the same time. Yes. How.? For

example, it was very hard

having detention centres in

Australia. It was difficult for

Australians, it was difficult

for everyone but it was the

right thing to do and we had

those detention centres. Now,

under the Howard Government,

when we're in Government, we

not only got the children out

of those detention centres but

we closed detention centres

because there were no boat

arrivals or one a year or two a

year. Now we're in a situation

where we've got thousands

coming to our shores, one or

two boats every day at the

moment and frankly- Why isn't

there an acknowledgment from

the Opposition that there are

in fact push factors that do

make people take that treacherous journey from

Indonesia to Christmas Island?

There have always been push

factors because there have

always been legitimate refugee

claims. Why does the Coalition

go around bandying the line

that the Government is the pull

factor? The Government is the

pull factor because what's

happening now is because the

Government changed the policy

under Kevin Rudd, because they

changed the policy under Kevin

Rudd, the boats started coming

again and they're coming

again- But now both parties

agree on off shore processing. If I could finish - the war is

meant to have ended in Sri

Lanka and certainly Afghanistan

is more stable today than what

it was when there was a

full-scale war back in the

early 2000s so it's strongly

arguable that the push factors

are less today than they were

under the Coalition Government

but the fact is that the boats

are coming at a far greater

speed with far more people. One

of the reasons why is the

people smugglers have a product

and that is the opportunity for

people to get to Australia and get permanent residency so

that's why you need to have a

3-prong attack of turning back

the boats where possible,

having Nauru processing and

then thirdly, temporary

protection visas so even if

they get to Australia they're not guaranteed permanent

residency. Joe Hockey y was

born in Sri Lanka, the war may

have ended three years ago but

the persecution of Tamils,

which the asylum seekers that

hop on boats to come to

Australia continues, so I just

wanted to ask you Malcolm

Turnbull last night proposed

that the Government take on the

Coalition's policies and then

if they don't work to revisit

the Government's own stance on

this, how is that different to

the sunset clause that's been

proposed by Andrew Wilkie which

passed the house? To go back

to - I'm not going to argue

with you about your heritage of

course but just to say that the

strength of the push factors

are not the same as what

they've previously been out of

a number of countries. That's

what I'm saying. Of course

there will be legitimate

refugee claims from a number of

different countries. In

relation to Andrew Wilkie, I

don't know what Andrew Wilkie

believes in. I'm stunned. He

said he couldn't live with his

conscience in supporting but

did a deal on a sunset clause

and supported it so obviously

his conscience can be

compromised. Frankly, the

sunset clause proposal, it was

part of the compromise that the

Government thought would be

acceptable with him. From our

perspective, we were never

interested in supporting the

Malaysia people swap. We were

never going to do it and we are

not going to do it. Joe Hockey,

we thank you very much for