Kevin Rudd: 'If you come by boat you will never permanently live in Australia.', Address to nation about offshore detention - 2013

19 July 2013, Canberra, Australia

My fellow Australians.

Tonight I want to speak to you about a matter of great importance to all of us.

Earlier today I met the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and struck a new regional arrangement on asylum seekers.

From this point forward, asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea for processing and resettlement.

Australia will continue to have cooperative arrangements in asylum seekers with Nauru.

People who come by boat now have no prospect of being resettled in Australia.

The rules have changed. If you come by boat you will never permanently live in Australia.

This has not been an easy decision for me or my colleagues.

The sight of asylum seekers being exploited by people smugglers is appalling.

And the problem is likely to get worse in the future as it is for so many countries around the world.

We also have to do everything possible to protect our orderly migration system and the integrity of our borders.

The bottom line is that we have to protect lives by dealing robustly with people smugglers.

Australians have had enough of seeing asylum seekers dying in the waters to our north and our northwest.

They’ve had enough of people smugglers profiting from death.

Like me, they worry about the safety of our brave servicemen and women involved in rescue operations when boats get into distress.

As Prime Minister, I must address changing circumstances, balancing our humanitarian obligations under international law with the reality on the ground.

Australian Governments have never had a policy on asylum seekers that is set in stone.

We must always adjust to changing circumstances while remaining true to our values and vigilant concerning our legal obligations.

Asylum seeker policy is complex. It is very complex indeed.

It is hard. It involves detailed cooperation with other countries.

With this announcement there will inevitably be many hurdles along the road.

It won’t be smooth and nobody should expect the boats to stop tomorrow.

In fact, people smugglers will now try and test our resolve.

Our job is to deal with each new hurdle as it appears.

Under our new policy, Australia will continue to take genuine refugees from around the world under the normal processes of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Refugees who have often been languishing in camps for a decade.

But my message to asylum seekers around the world is simple.

Under the arrangement with Papua New Guinea, if you come here by boat, you will be sent to Papua New Guinea.

I also have a message for the people smugglers of our region and the world.

Your business model is over.

The decision we have announced today is one part of the Government’s multilayered approach in responding to the scourge of people smuggling.

The Government will continue to adjust our policy and approach in the future as necessary.

I thank you for your attention.

Stephen Jones: "We’ve been to too many funerals", debating Religious Discrimation Bill - 2022

2 February 2022, Canberra, Australia

Thanks Deputy Speaker, well it’s normally my custom to come to this dispatch box and deliver and thunderous, passionate address. There will not be much thunder today, but with no less passion.

There are 10 sitting days remaining in the 46th parliament.

There is a crisis in our aged care system. Hundreds of Australians are dying in understaffed, underfunded homes and yet this government seems powerless or unwilling to do nothing about it.

Two years ago the government promised to introduce a federal anti-corruption commission. The attorney general told us yesterday that no such promise will be delivered.

There are skills shortages and supply shortages which are preventing businesses from opening and the economy recovering.

Interest rates will certainly rise which will make existing cost of living pressures even worse.

These are the matters we should be focusing on in the final weeks of this parliament.

Instead we’ll spend the best part of two days debating a bill which pleases no one.

I support freedom of religion. I understand many in our community who want to see the existing laws strengthened to protect their freedom of religious expression. Although we are a long way from the days when employers could lawfully place ads in newspapers that say Catholics, my faith, need not apply – I understand the desire for a greater recognition and rights for people of faith.

But regrettably, the sometimes toxic debate that has been unleashed by the prime minister has put a spotlight on the fact that no rights are unlimited. Where the exercise of one person’s rights comes crashing up against another person’s freedom, we need to find a solution. It can be done and it is the role of this parliament to do that.

The contest of ideas and the ways of life is usually dealt with by social norms, by civility and human decency – regrettably, sometimes not. Unfortunately, when parliament steps in, the law has a very blunt way of dealing with it.

If we are to do this ... Then we must do it properly, thoughtfully, consultatively, and to date we have not. If we are to believe the reports in today’s paper, the government has failed to bring forward a law which protects children.

For me, this is not an academic issue.

The courage to swim against the tide

Last week my family said farewell to my nephew Ollie. He was just 15 when he took his own life. No mother or father should ahve to endure this sight. No brother should have to clean up afterwards. He was a beautiful, creative, courageous young man. He was loved and accepted by his parents, brothers and friends. His mum and dad are in anguish. We all are. He was gay. He was uncertain about his gender and he struggled with his mental health. Now he is gone and we will no longer be able to love him and support him on his journey throughout life. Clearly the love and acceptance of his family and friends was not enough.

My own son is also a beautiful, creative, intelligent 14-year-old. He designs and makes his own clothes, he is a gifted makeup artist, he moves seamlessly between the wardrobes of men and women. He wears heels that give me vertigo and has more handbags than his sister.

He has more courage than any other boy of his age that I have ever met. He swims against the tide.

I love and support him unconditionally and I brag about his talents to anyone who is willing to stop for two minutes and glance at his Instagram page.

But I worry myself sick every time he leaves the house. I think to myself, ‘you look beautiful, but do you have to go out looking like that?’ Because I know that the love and protection that he enjoys with his mother, with his friends and family is very different to the reception he may receive in the outside world.

Could this be the day when we receive the call = telling us that something has happened? That he has been attacked, for just being who he is?

Yet, this is about my kids, but it’s also not … this is about the families and every child who has the courage to swim against the tide just to be who they are..

What message do we want to send?

Earlier today the prime minister said we should exercise our power in this place with love. Look I know the cynic in all of us could easily giggle at that phrase and dismiss it as a political line … But I don’t. I agree. I’m asking the prime minister to reflect on those words as we consider this bill.

I’d ask the prime minister and every other member in this place to put themselves in the shoes of the parents, or the heels of their kids, as they step out in public.

What message do we want to this parliament to send to these kids. Are they as loved and cherished and respected as every other kid? Surely we aren’t saying to them – it’s OK if you are gay … Just so long as we can’t see it. Surely we can do better than that. At some stage we have to do better than that.

Because the thing that every parent of every gay or trans kid knows is that the love and protection that we provide for them inside our family and inside our homes and is not enough.

It is not enough.

At some stage they have to step out into the world and deal with it as it is.

So we as parliamentarians have the power to shape that world … by what we do and what we say. and how we vote. What message do we want to send to our kids?

Shaping the Australia we want to have

You know there’s a simple ease in which members of this place toss sausages at a charity barbecue, drink a beer, place a cap on our head and smile for a camera, put a footy jumper on and cheer for our favourite team. I do it regularly.

And when we do that we are signalling to Australia that we are just like you … or at least that Australia as we imagine it to be.

But the fact is Australia is a much more diverse place than that which we project from our pulpit in this place.

Being an Aussie is much more than punting on the Melbourne Cup or shouting ‘Go Saints’ or “Go Sharkies”.

It’s much more complex that that.

It’s the responsibility, the high responsibility of all of us called to this place to reflect and shape the sort of Australia that we want to have.

And it’s a bloody diverse place!

It is black. It’s white. It’s brown.. It prays in a church, it prays in a mosque, it prays in a shrine, in a synagogue, in a hall … or on a surfboard just behind the breaks

It’s men and women, it’s straight, it’s gay , it’s trans, it’s intersex … it’s the whole bloody lot.

We are the Australia of Storm Boy, of Breaker Morant, of Puberty Blues and, yes, of Priscilla Queen of the Desert.

It’s not easy crafting a national story that includes us all – but that’s our damn job! That’s our job. And the national story must have a place for all of us and all of our kids – how we imagine them, but more importantly how they are.

If a young kid has the courage to be themselves and own their identity – the least, the very least we can do is say “welcome”, we love you, and we respect you, and you’re okay, just the way you are.

My family are grieving like so many others. There have been too many funerals, too many grieving families. We have in our gift the power to do something, let’s not let the opportunity pass.

I thank my friends who have come to provide me support, I thank the leader of the opposition, my good friend, for sitting through what for me has been a difficult address. And I know there are many people who are listening, or who will read this speech afterwards, who want me to conclude with the words, ‘let’s dump this bill!’’

But I’m not saying that. What I’m saying to the leader of the opposition, and the prime minister if he;’ll listen, is ‘let’s take a step back’. Let’s imagine a national story that talks to all of us. And let’s not do something, in the name of freedom of religion, that does damage or harm to those of us who we love.

We’ve been to too many funerals.

Let’s get this done.

But let’s do it properly. Surely it is not beyond the wit and wisdom and decency of every member in this place, to get this done properly.

I thank you for your time.

Simon Crean: 'I believe that you've already made the commitment to war' - 2003

5 February 2003, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia

The statement by the prime minister is his argument for war, not a plan for peace.

It only took the prime minister until only the second page of his statement to conclude that the only possible outcome is war.

There are several things on which we agree.

Our total support for the brave men women of the Australian Defence Forces and their families.

Non proliferation is a critical security issue.

Saddam Hussein must disarm.

The issue of Iraq cannot be seen in isolation from the broader security issues that confront the Middle East, particularly the need for peace in Israel and Palestine.

The Authority of the UN must be upheld.

But this statement is a justification for war, not a plan to secure the peace, and it is on this point that the prime minister and I fundamentally disagree.

And this explains the prime minister's actions to date.

Two weeks ago, prime minister, you committed Australia's young men and women to a war not yet declared, knowing all along that you couldn't pull them out.

You committed them without the mandate of the Australian people, the Australian parliament or the United Nations.

You committed them solely on the say so of George W Bush.

You committed them to a command structure you can't withdraw from if George Bush decides to go it alone and pursue a military solution regardless of the UN.

You have done all of this but you haven't told the Australian people.

You haven't had the courage or conviction to tell them what you have done.

Here we are finally with the chance to debate the troop commitment in parliament, and you still haven't told them.

You go to media conferences and tell them you want peace but you have committed the troops to war.

Not with any UN mandate but through a US request.

And now you are going to the US.

The pity is, prime minister, that you won't be here to answer questions in this parliament.

My question for you - and the question the Australian people want answered is this: when you go to Washington will you tell George Bush that no Australian troops will be involved in the war in Iraq without a UN mandate?

You must insist in your discussions with George Bush that no troops should be sent to war without a UN mandate.

I will keep asking my question because it's the question the Australian people want answered.

It's your obligation as the prime minister to do the right thing by the troops you've committed to war.

You say that the US alliance requires you to respond to all requests from the US.

It does not.

The very first clause of the ANZUS treaty makes it clear that all alliance decisions must be in conformity with the United Nations.

This clause commits all presidents and prime ministers, but you haven't fulfilled it.

This alliance has stood the test of time and it should be honoured fully.

There is no graver decision that a prime minister can take than sending men and women to a war.

And there is no greater breach of trust than committing them to war without telling them the full extent of your commitment.

You have breached the trust that exists between a nation and its leader.

You claim that you have committed our troops to bring the maximum pressure to bear on Iraq to dispose of its weapons of mass destruction.

You claim that if there is no UN mandate for military action, you can bring the troops back, even if the US decides to go it alone.

You've said that you would withdraw Australian forces if there was a possibility that nuclear weapons could be used.

But where's the guarantee? How do you propose to achieve this? What assurances have you personally sought from the Bush administration?

You had the chance today, perhaps your last chance, to tell the Australian people the truth.

But you chose not to.

I believe - and the Australian people believe - that you've already made the commitment to war.

You have no credibility with the Australian people on this issue.

Members of your own party know it. Members of your backbench know it.

We believe that Australian troops should not have been sent in advance of a UN mandate.

We believe the weapons inspectors are still doing their job and should be given the chance to finish it.

We believe in the authority of the United Nations Security Council to deal with issue of disarming Iraq.

And we have repeated this since April last year.

You haven't consulted the Australian people.

You haven't consulted your party.

But you have consulted President Bush.

You said you were sending these troops because it was in the national interest.

I want to know, prime minister, which nation?

Let's not understate the size of the con that's being played on the Australian people.

We are sending more than 2,000 troops.

For a nation with a military the size of ours it's an awesome commitment.

It's twice what we committed to Afghanistan.

And three times what we committed to the Gulf in 1991.

This is the largest single commitment of combat troops since Vietnam.

Such a decision should only be established once a just cause has been established.

That has not yet happened.

No link has yet been made between Iraq and al-Qaeda, although we are waiting for Secretary of State Colin Powell's report to the Security Council later this week.

The weapons inspectors have not been given the chance to complete their job.

It has not been authorised by the United Nations.

You said yesterday that you are going to Washington to inform George Bush of the views of the Australian people.

Well let me tell you what those views are.

The Australian people don't want peace at any cost, but they don't your war at any price.

The majority want to see Iraq disarmed, but they want it done under the mandate of the United Nations and with the authority of international law.

That's the position that Labor has been consistently arguing since last April.

You're not going to the US to tell President Bush what the views of the Australian people are. You're going to get your riding instructions. Everybody knows it.

Let's look at the government's flip-flopping on war on Iraq.

Last year, when Labor released its detailed policy statement on Iraq, the foreign minister and the treasurer said we were "appeasers" and we were "talking like Saddam Hussein" because we wanted the issue to go back to the UN Security Council.

The prime minister spent half the year constantly saying that if he received a request from the US to participate in a war against Iraq, he would consider it.

No mention was ever made of the United Nations.

No attempt was made to convince the Americans to take the issue back to the Security Council.

But in September when George Bush decided to address the General Assembly the prime minister changed his tune.

Suddenly the prime minister was saying the UN should be the vehicle to disarm Iraq - six months after Labor first articulated that exact position.

Even then, the prime minister refused to be honest with the Australian people because he continued to say that he had not yet made a commitment to war because it was hypothetical.

But behind the scenes he was actively planning to deploy Australian troops.

The government's rhetoric has now finally come around to what Labor has been saying since April. But not it's real intentions.

The people know that you don't mean what you say.

They can sense it in the mealy mouthed way you claim that our military commitment is really a peace mission.

They can sense it in the way you avoid answering the question: if the UN doesn't back the war, will you bring the troops home?

You are treating the Australian people like mugs. And they don't like it.

The prime minister is playing on the fear of Australians - the fear of the threat of terrorism.

By threatening war alongside George Bush he isn't addressing the fear, he's adding to it. He is heightening the risk.

He is increasing our vulnerability.

He is adding to the instability in our region - an area his intelligence shows us is increasingly vulnerable to that threat.

This premature action taken by Australia comes at the expense of our more immediate and critical concerns about terrorism in the region.

Only three weeks ago the Singaporean government released a paper showing the extent of terrorist networks across the region - they are much greater than previously thought.

But we hear nothing from this government about dealing with these more immediate threats.

Our strongest defence against regional terrorism has always been the joint commitment we hold with countries in the region to pursuing common goals and cooperative outcomes.

The best way to combat terrorism is to work closely with the police and security agencies of neighbouring countries. But the prime minister hasn't done that.

The prime minister should do more than offer his thanks to President Megawati, he should discussing with her how to strengthen the fight against terrorism in our region.

Several months ago I called for a regional summit of leaders to tackle terrorism. I urge the prime minister to convene such a summit.

But the prime minister undermines this with his talk of pre-emptive strikes and his support for action outside the authority of the UN.

The path to security is not unlilateralism but multilateralism.

It's a complex issue that no one country can solve alone.

The issue of Iraq, perhaps unlike any issue of recent times, defines the differences between the two major political parties in this country.

This difference comes from a fundamental divergence of principle.

Labor has always supported the role of the United Nations and the rule of international law.

We helped create the UN out of the rubble of the Second World War. That attempt to settle international disputes through peaceful means was the great tribute our nation paid to the men and women who died in World War Two.

It's one of the proudest pieces of our history that a Labor foreign minister, Dr Evatt, was the founding president of the General Assembly.

But while we always support the role of the UN, the Liberals always support their "great and powerful friends".

The parallels between Howard and Menzies are there to see: cow-towing to London and Washington, the constant sojourns at the Savoy, the nod and wink in support of military action - even if it doesn't have legitimacy.

That is the Liberal's political tradition.

The Liberal Party has never had the courage to state an independent foreign policy that is in Australia's interests.

It's only ever asked: what's in the interests of the US?

Labor supports the US alliance, but we want a mature one, not a toadying one.

The US alliance has endured for over 50 years.

It has always had bipartisan support.

But it does not mean that we have to agree with every policy position of every US administration.

We have had our differences in the past but the alliance will endure, because Australians and Americans believe in the same things - democracy, freedom and respect for the rule of law.

Why is the UN so important?

If the US flaunts the decisions of the UN, it sends a signal to other nations not to be bound by its decisions.

It is in the interests of nations the size of Australia for the rule of international law to be strong.

A strong UN can ensure that nations disarm and can stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction to our region.

The prime minister says that his main reason for deploying Australian troops to Iraq was to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

But what has his government done in seven years to strengthen UN arms control?

Nothing.

He has remained silent on the Canberra Commission Report.

The Canberra Commission said it clearly - "The possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them".

Where is John Howard's brave new initiative to push forward on nuclear arms control?

Labor has called for the Canberra Commission to be re-convened, with a new mandate to decide what steps are needed to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.

The prime minister has been unable to convince the US government to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - which Foreign Minister Downer has called "a major milestone" and said "will bring the nuclear arms race to a definite end".

The prime minister said nothing when last year the US government walked away from negotiations towards a verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention which would have provided transparency and confidence that all countries were working towards eliminating these terrible weapons.

The prime minister says he's been told that nothing in US preparations for war with Iraq include the possible use of nuclear weapons.

But the White House spokesman admitted that 'all options were on the table'.

And the Bush administration has made it clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through the use of nuclear weapons.

The prime minister has made a great mistake in committing our troops ahead of the UN.

Labor does not support that decision.

We do not support the deployment of Australian troops in advance of any UN authority.

I took my case directly to the troops themselves on the HMAS Kanimbla.

I had a difficult decision to make about what to say to them. But I knew what the right thing was to do.

I was truthful with them in a way the prime minister was not.

I believe that political leaders should always tell the truth. This is especially so when committing troops to war.

The prime minister failed that test.

He treated the Australian people like mugs and he continues to do so.

And what of our security now?

The prime minister has taken his eye off the ball in the fight against terrorism in our region.

He has failed to adequately prepare our defences against terrorism and neglected regional security measures. He is instead sending our forces overseas.

He has divided our people, alienated our friends, sent our best anti-terrorism troops ten thousand miles away.

He expects those of us left behind to defend ourselves with a fridge magnet.

The prime minister must stop treating the Australian people like mugs.

Only Labor governments have been prepared to tell our allies no when it's been in our national interests.