Media Release

Transcript - Sky News AM Agenda

Wednesday 17th March 2010

Subjects: Paid Parental Leave, Peter Costello, Paul Keating, health reform, Labor’s border protection failures

EandOE

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Hello and welcome to AM Agenda, I’m Ashleigh Gillon. Peter Costello has delivered a gift to Kevin Rudd today writing a scathing opinion piece about the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme. Mr Costello is astounded that Mr Abbott wants to hike taxes for big business and he says the party should’ve heard alarm bells ringing after the Greens endorsed the plan. For reaction to the comments and a look at the other political issues around today, joining me here in the Canberra studio the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment Jason Clare, good morning.

JASON CLARE: Good morning, Ash.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: And the Shadow Immigration Minister Scott Morrison good morning to you.

SCOTT MORRISON: Good morning, Ashleigh.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Scott, no surprises to what I’m going to start on with you this morning, do you agree with any of the points raised by Mr Costello in that article today?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, one of the points you didn’t mention about what he raised in that article was what his criticism was of the Rudd government’s health plan …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Don’t worry, we’ll get to that with Jason soon …

SCOTT MORRISON: … but I mean that …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: But, let’s ask you …

SCOTT MORRISON: … that, that was important …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … though about the paid parental leave scheme.

SCOTT MORRISON: … I mean he basically said that is Kevin Rudd doesn’t trust the GST with, states with the GST well why not take it all back, which I thought was a very interesting point. But, I think, you know, with Peter’s article today, I think what it shows is that, you know, Tony Abbott is no more a clone of Peter Costello than he is of John Howard. Tony Abbott is his own man, he has his own set of policies, he’s made it very clear that he sees this is a big priority to have a genuine, serious, fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme and that’s what he’s put forward. Peter has a different view to that, he’s entitled to that but Tony’s the leader of the Opposition and he’s directing policy.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: So, you neatly sidestepped around my initial question which was do you agree with any of the points that Mr Costello raised to do with the paid parental leave scheme?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, if we’re going to have a paid parental leave scheme which is fair dinkum, then it has to be paid for and this government has completely trashed the budget so you’re going to have to come up with a way to pay for it. I mean it was the last year when we responded to the budget and we suggested that the excise on cigarettes should go up to pay for keeping the means testing, sorry abolishing the government’s proposals to means test the private health insurance rebate. So, you know, we said it then when we come up with ideas we do put up suggestions for how we’re going to pay for them and what’s what we’ve done in this occasion and we’ve got a fair dinkum scheme.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Hiking taxes on cigarettes is very different to slugging big business with an extra levy. That is some thing that goes against the grain for most Liberals isn’t it?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, we had levies that were introduced on superannuation under the previous government. We had levies which were introduced to buy back guns. We’ve had levies in the past to deal with matters and we’ve also abolished those levies when we could afford to …

ASHLEIGH: It just sounds odd to me. Scott …

SCOTT MORRISON: … that’s why it’s a …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … that you’re defending the Coalition’s record on increasing taxes

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, what I’m saying is that people are suggesting this is some sort of major departure and the truth is in government we introduced levies from time to time to pay for things that we thought were important like buying back guns and on this occasion Tony’s put forward the suggestion we have a tax on a small number of businesses out of the total that pay tax to fund an important scheme which is fair dinkum, not the hollow, shallow alternative that the government’s putting up.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Jason Clare, look as Scott Morrison mentioned Mr Costello also slammed the government’s plans for health reforms, saying this is going to create a new level of bureaucracy and that’s a, that is an argument we’ve been hearing a lot from the Coalition.

JASON CLARE: It’s not surprising that Peter Costello attacks the Labor Party; he’s been doing that for 20 years. What’s surprising today is he’s now starting to attack the Liberal Party. Peter Costello is the economic messiah of the Liberal Party, Peter Costello created the Liberal Party’s economic credibility and he’s now just destroyed Tony Abbott’s. Remember, this is the bloke that the Liberal Party describes as the greatest Treasurer that has ever been in Australia and he’s now just said that Tony Abbot’s plan is bad economics. He’s right, it comes off the back of what Barnaby Joyce has said, that it will increase the cost of petrol, increase the cost of milk, it will increase the cost of bread. You know, for Peter Costello to be attacking the Liberal Party saying this is bad economics is like Shane Warne saying you can’t bat and you can’t bowl. What he said is that Tony Abbott is not up to it and Paul Keating and Peter Costello don’t agree on much but they both agree on this and that is that Tony Abbott is just not up to it.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: But hold on, on this show before you have attacked Peter Costello for his economic legacy and now you’re holding him up as the be all and end all.

JASON CLARE: No, no, what I’m saying is this is the bloke that the Liberal Party say are the great economic messiah, the one that created their economic credibility, and for him, the person that is in charge, the former Treasurer that the Liberal Party’s hold up as the great example of economic credibility to now attack Tony Abbott show’s that Tony Abbott now has a economic credibility problem.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Scott Morrison, there must be some Liberal’s who are pretty upset about this piece today? I mean, Mr Costello isn’t doing Mr Abbott any favours. The government is going to have so much fun with this is in Question Time today.

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, you know, Peter has forthright views, he’s always expressed them, he’s a very strong character. In the Liberal …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Is it disappointing? Would you, you would’ve preferred that he didn’t come out with this piece today?

SCOTT MORRISON: I mean, I think that these things are obvious but nevertheless Peter is entitled to his view. He’s put it, I mean the Prime, Peter has been very critical of this government’s record on fiscal management, debt and deficit, I mean I think the biggest disappointment I think Peter had when he was here in this Parliament in this term was to watch as the legacy of a positive balance sheet for this country was just demolished. And if there’s one issue that I think Peter feels strongly about more than anything else, and that is Lindsay Tanner’s and Wayne Swan’s destruction of the nations finances.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Do you think though that your colleagues and even yourself would be urging Mr Costello to keep quite on the criticisms especially at this crucial stage?

SCOTT MORRISON: Oh, look Peter’s a free spirit, he can, he writes articles every fortnight, I’m sure he’s going to write a lot more articles, but the point is this Tony Abbott is not Peter Costello, Tony Abbott is not John Howard he’s his own man, he has his own policy as he’s taking us in a very clear direction and, you know, he has great support in the party …

JASON CLARE: That is one good point …

SCOTT MORRISON: … right around the country.

JASON CLARE: That is one good point, Tony Abbott isn’t Peter Costello, he thought economics was boring. That’s why Peter Costello said he would never have him as his deputy because he doesn’t treat economics seriously. And Peter Costello did treat economics seriously. Scott thought of Peter Costello very seriously …

SCOTT MORRISON: You’ve got to comment then, Jason, on what he thinks of Lindsay Tanner …

JASON CLARE: … in 2008 …

SCOTT MORRISON: … and Wayne Swan.

JASON CLARE: … in 2008 you asked Peter Costello …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Okay.

JASON CLARE: … to come back and be Leader of the Opposition, now you’re disassociating yourself from everything that he’s saying.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Jason Clare, you also neatly sidestepped my question earlier about health reform because this is the other …

JASON CLARE: Sure.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … attack that Peter Costello has made in this article. Mr Costello says that by taking some GST revenue off the states due to these health reforms then you could be setting a dangerous precedent basically. Mr Costello says, you know, next are we going to see GST taken away to put into school boards and put into local police boards and isn’t that a fair point? Don’t the states have a right to be fearful that this sort of, you know, taking off from that GST revenue could …

JASON CLARE: No, no, no …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … continue?

JASON CLARE: Well, what we’re dealing with here is an area of policy where the costs are increasing exponentially. The cost of health care is going up by 10 per cent a year compared to the growth in GST of four per cent a year and that is the crucial difference here. The changes we want to make to the health system, to the hospital system to fix it are supported by doctors, are supported by nurses, are supported overwhelmingly by the general public …

SCOTT MORRISON: What about the states?

JASON CLARE: … if you think that the system, well …

SCOTT MORRISON: Are the states going to sign up?

JASON CLARE: Well, well the states will be better off as a result ...

SCOTT MORRISON: But will they sign up?

JASON CLARE: … because if you go to a 60-40 model it means that the extra cost of funding the health system will be, will be managed disproportionately by the federal government, by the government that has the best tax bases upon which to fund the system. Not the system, not the system …

SCOTT MORRISON: Yeah, but if the states don’t sign up, Jason it’s academic.

JASON CLARE: Not the system.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: As Scott is pointing out it does look very unlikely at this stage anyway, none of the states have committed to this plan. They keep saying they need to see the Henry Tax Review released, for example, so they can see how those GST changes could fit in with some overarching changes to the tax system.

JASON CLARE: And we’ve assured the states that no state will be worse off, in fact states will be better off …

SCOTT MORRISON: (Inaudible) they look confident about that …

JASON CLARE: … over the course of the next decade they will get …

SCOTT MORRISON: … they look very confident about that promise, Jason.

JASON CLARE: … well, I’ll tell you what when I talk to my state colleagues they say we’ll be better off under this than under the system that Tony Abbott was in charge of where he ripped a billion dollars out of the health system …

SCOTT MORRISON: Oh, you know that’s not true, we’re not going to go over that boring argument again …

JASON CLARE: … we’re he ripped a billion dollars …

SCOTT MORRISON: … with you guys sledging (inaudible).

JASON CLARE: … one, one billion dollars …

SCOTT MORRISON: … we’ve gone through that …

JASON CLARE: … one billion dollars

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Now, look …

SCOTT MORRISON: … day after day after day …

JASON CLARE: … one billion dollars …

SCOTT MORRION: … leave the untruths

ASHLEIGH GILLON: This is an argument …

JASON CLARE: … one billion dollars

SCOTT MORRISON: … for parliament, Jason.

JASON CLARE: … one billion dollars.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Okay, look this is an argument we heard in Question Time yesterday, Mr Abbott was reminded by the government of his record on, as when he was Health Minister, of course, under the Howard government. Let’s have a look at some of that from yesterday.

PAUL KEATING: You know, Bjelke-Petersen Junior running around, what’s his name the Senator from Queensland?

FRAN KELLY: I think your talking about Senator Joyce.

PAUL KEATING: Joyce, yep. You wouldn’t trust this mob with a jam jar full of five cent bits. I mean if Tony Abbott ends up the Prime Minister of Australia, I mean, you’ve got to say God help us, God help us, you know, an intellectual, truly an intellectual nobody. Look, he turned up in the last couple of years when I was Prime Minister; I always regard him as a resident nutter on their side.

LINDSAY TANNER: For 2003/4 a cut, a cut of $109 million. For …

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Mr Speaker, under standing order 91F I point out to you that it is disorderly for the Minister to tell lies to the parliament.

HARRY JENKINS: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

TONY ABBOTT: Is it in order for the Minister to misleadingly quote the budget papers and not the part of the budget papers that say there is a $10 billion increase.

HARRY JENKINS: Order, the Leader of the Opposition resume his seat

ASHLEIGH GILLON: The first sound bite there was obviously not Lindsay Tanner, that was the former Prime Minister Paul Keating and we will get to those comments in a minute but firstly, just yesterday we did see this attack on Tony Abbott. Every time the Health Minister does a news conference she mentions that Tony Abbott took a billion dollars out of the health system, did he Scott Morrison?

SCOTT MORRISON: No, of course he didn’t it’s totally not true; as Tony said yesterday, they‘re selectively quoting budget papers. There was a real increase in health funding over that period of time. The Commonwealth State Health Agreement showed that clearly and this is just more spin from a Labor government desperately trying to hide the fact that what Kevin Rudd is putting around is a plan that will not be supported by the states. It’s a plan to make him look tough before an election, not a plan to fix hospitals. If you’re going to put forward a plan you’ve got to get people to actually back it in the states, otherwise it will be a failure. So, until he can demonstrate he can get people on board with this plan in the states he has no plan, just a lot of tough talk for the election.

JASON CLARE: Well, the …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Jason Clare, is this just a fear campaign?

JASON CLARE: No, no, no the budget papers don’t lie. He ripped $1 billion out of the health system. When Howard was the …

SCOTT MORRISON: Oh, that’s not true, Jason. Honestly this is just gets tiring, it’s tiring.

JASON CLARE: … well, hang on a sec I gave you a go. Let me tell you what happened …

SCOTT MORRISON: … just tiring.

JASON CLARE: … let me tell you what happened. When John Howard got elected, 1996, the federal government contributed 45 per cent of the cost of the hospital system by the time John Howard left office, at the end of 2007, that had dropped to below 40 per cent which meant the states had to pick up more of the slack. That happened because the amount of money that the federal government was supposed to put in to the health system dropped by $1 billion and the interesting thing here is that the internal party polling in the Liberal Party must show that this is hurting hard because every time we mention that Tony Abbott cut one billion dollars out of the health system, it really hurts and he gets really upset.

SCOTT MORRISON: What he misses though is an important point. The GST was introduced in that period of government which created a massive windfall of revenue for the states which they have monumentally mishandled, most particularly in New South Wales and Queensland. They were living with rivers of money coming out of the GST and they basically put it all against a wall buying more desks than beds …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Okay.

SCOTT MORRISON: … and that’s the reality in our hospitals today.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: This is an argument we’ve heard before, we’re going to hear it again …

SCOTT MORRISON: Sure.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … let’s though just comment on those comments we heard from Paul Keating yesterday. He also just another one getting stuck into Tony Abbott at the moment saying he was the resident nutter when Paul Keating was here in the building, do you think, Jason Clare, that that sort of language from Paul Keating is taken seriously?

JASON CLARE: Oh, that’s Paul being nice, you should hear the things that he says when he’s not on camera. Look, Paul in his own way is making the point that has been made for a long time and that is that Tony Abbott has some pretty extreme views. We saw on Four Corners the other night he said he thought women would never be equal to men, he thinks women are at home ironing, he thinks the planet is cooling; he has some pretty extreme views. That’s why I said that Tony Abbott is a political bungy jumper. It’s extreme; it’s exciting everyone wants to watch because everyone thinks it’s going to end badly.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: What do you think about former prime minister’s making these sorts of comments? I know John Howard when he left said I’m not going to be one of those prime minister’s that weighs into the daily political cycle. Earlier this week though he also gave an interview to The Australian slamming Kevin Rudd, saying that he hasn’t achieved anything in the first couple of years, do you think former PMs should just back off and stay out of the stuff?

SCOTT MORRISON: Oh, look I think it’s important in our country that we give esteem of formers PMs, I mean they’ve risen to the highest office in the country …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Paul Keating included in that?

SCOTT MORRISON: … that doesn’t necessarily mean we all agree with what they have to say. I mean if we’re going to take Paul Keating’s comments on Tony Abbot well frankly I’m happy for Paul Keating to be sledging Tony Abbott. Paul Keating’s record and Paul Keating’s relationship with the Australian people at the end of his term spoke for itself. I’m now …

JASON CLARE: What about Peter Costello?

SCOTT MORRISON: Hang on, I’m now …

JASON CLARE: … do you like Peter Costello in there attacking Tony Abbott?

SCOTT MORRISON: I’m now looking forward to Gough Whitlam’s endorsement of Kevin Rudd because he’s probably the most whitlamlite Prime Minister we’ve has since Gough Whitlam. So, if Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating want to back Kevin Rudd and bag Tony Abbott …

JASON CLARE: Peter Costello in there as well.

SCOTT MORRISON: well, they are welcome to do it because I think that speaks volumes about the Rudd government.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: We are going to take a break and we’re going to try not to mention Peter Costello or Paul Keating or John Howard in the next half of the program. We’ll be back with you in just a couple of minutes.

Welcome back to AM Agenda. Yesterday in parliament we saw the Coalition ramping up pressure on the government over the asylum seeker issue, the Prime Minister acknowledged the government may need to move asylum seekers to Darwin, to the mainland to be processed if Christmas Island does fill up, but the Prime Minister said he’s only doing what the former Prime Minister John Howard did, let’s have a look at some of the debate.

KEVIN RUDD: The government has for a long period of time indicated that if further capacity is needed at various other locations within the country then of course we would recourse to that as I would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to my earlier answer when on previous occasions during the time of the Pacific Solution the government at that stage brought various asylum seekers to processing centres within Australia.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Tony Abbott though reminded Kevin Rudd of his promise to take a hard line approach on this issue before the last election.

TONY ABBOTT: Prime Minister with 24 boats and over 1200 unauthorised arrivals in just the past 10 weeks …

HARRY JENKINS: Order.

TONY ABBOTT: … isn’t his hollow promise of 2007 just the latest example of a government which is all talk and no action?

KEVIN RUDD: We continue to maintain a policy which includes offshore processing, which includes mandatory detention, which includes stringent health, identity and security checks which protects our national security and one in which we also act consistently with this country’s international obligations.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Scott Morrison and Jason Clare are with me this morning on our panel of politicians. Jason Clare, the boats just keep on coming. They’re showing no sign of abating are they? What’s the government doing about it to try to stop them?

JASON CLARE: Well, it’s a tough issue; it’s been a tough issue for governments for the last 30 years. Scott and I actually agree on about 95 per cent of the policy here. Scott won’t tell you this but we agree on 95 per cent of it. We agree on mandatory detention, we agree on the resources that you need to give the Navy to do the interdiction and the surveillance on the high seas, we agree that you need to work with your neighbours; we need to work with Indonesia to stop people smuggling in those transit countries and we saw the good work that happens when you work with Indonesia last week. What we don’t agree on are the two things that didn’t work. I don’t agree with Scott on temporary protection visas. When they were introduced the number of boats increased, didn’t decrease. And, I don’t agree with Scott on the introduction or the reintroduction of the Pacific Solution which cost a billion dollars, 1700 people put on an island out somewhere in the South Pacific, that cost half a million dollars per person and 60 per cent of the people there ended up coming to Australia in the end.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: But, it’s not ideal is it for asylum seekers to be taken to Darwin to be processed which is what inevitably seems like is going to happen. I think there’s only a hundred or so spare beds on Christmas Island …

JASON CLARE: There’s still capacity there at the moment but we’ve said for the last six months that if necessary then we will be able to put asylum seekers at Darwin, that’s exactly the same thing has happened under the Howard government. So, there is no difference here between what we are doing, or what we will do if necessary and what the Howard government did when necessary under the Pacific Solution.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Scott Morrison, what is wrong with taking asylum seekers to Darwin to be processed?

SCOTT MORRISON: Let me just correct a couple of things, firstly what the Prime Minister and also what Jason said. What was done when we were in government in bringing people to mainland for temporary purposes is completely different to what this government is proposing. We introduced special provisions into the migration act that enabled people to be transferred for a temporary purpose for health or medivac purposes or things of that nature. There were only a couple of people, a few people who were the subject of those types of transitions and it was only for a temporary purpose. This is a permanent transfer. This is a process of saying Christmas Island is full, our policies have failed and we’re now going to bring people to the mainland before their asylum claims have been assessed. Now, there are two problems with that, to come to your question. The first one is that it sends a message to people smugglers that you can now get your clients all the way to the mainland. It ups the sugar as President Yudhoyono would talk about in terms of pull factors, it ups the sugar factor. Secondly, it opens up a very real murky legal territory on this issue. Now, the situation is the UNHCR said last week in both Sri Lanka and in Afghanistan is changing, if people’s claims are rejected when they’re on the mainland that will be tested in the courts. Now, Senator Evans says no that can’t happen; well it takes one judge in one court to hear this issue and test whether someone’s status will be affected if they transfer to the mainland. Now, when we were in government we put in a provision to enable a transitory, a transitional transfer. This government has not done this to quarantine our laws in terms of any movements they might make of people. Now, I think that’s reckless, I think it is the last straw in terms of dismantling the regime they inherited and that’s why we have 10 boats arriving per month, the highest on record.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Jason Clare, what do you make of that argument that asylum seekers could be given better access to the court system and as Scott raises there that one judge could make decisions?

JASON CLARE: Well, well it’s just simply not right and Scott knows it’s not right. The legal advice that the government’s got, the legal advice that you’ve been given when you’ve spoken, when spoken to Amnesty International, refugee organisations or when you’ve sought the right advice, the advice is that the legal status of the individuals doesn’t change whether they’re on Christmas Island or whether they’re on Darwin.

SCOTT MORRISON: But it’s not, it’s contestable though Jason, it is contestable.

JASON CLARE: And what Scott is saying is …

SCOTT MORRISON: … it is not absolutely certain.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Okay.

JASON CLARE: … what Scott is saying is that over my dead body no one would ever come from Christmas Island to Darwin, we’d put them on some island out the back of Iceland. Now, what the Pacific solution showed us is that it costs more, so Scott is saying the taxpayers can pay more because we won’t put them on Darwin if have to, we’ll send them out to Nauru. Well the evidence from the Pacific solution was a cost of a billion dollars, half a million dollars per person and 60 per cent ended up coming to Australia. So, what Scott is advocating is that it costs more for the taxpayer that is not the right or responsible approach.

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, let’s talk about, can I talk about the cost because he’s raised the issue of costs?

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Do talk about the costs and I also want to ask you about that issue of giving the message to asylum seekers that they can get all the way to the mainland. Do you think they really get that message …

SCOTT MORRISON: Yes.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … when they’re taking off on boats as to where they’re going and what the …

SCOTT MORRISON: Yes.

JASON CLARE: That’s nonsense, it’s nonsense.

SCOTT MORRISON: Absolutely.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … legal ramifications should be?

SCOTT MORRISON: … I’ve been to Christmas Island I’ve seen the people sitting in the centres on Skype talking to their families back in Sri Lanka or back in Pakistan or back wherever they are, the flow of information about what’s happening in terms of the government’s policies and the changes gets through and this what people smugglers use to ply their trade. They’re asking people to pay $20,000 per person to get on a boat, now they’re going to want to know that they’re going to get what they’re paying for and this helps the people smugglers make that claim stick. But on the issue of costs, already this year because of the unprecedented flow of arrivals to this country what we have seen is the government ask for an extra $132 million on their original budget estimate just to catch up with 3100 that have already arrived and then tracking that forward to the end of the year it will cost another $250 million this year alone, so over the forward estimates and this year alone that will be an extra billion dollars in costs because of their failed policies. Jason, wants to talk about costs, putting people with a massive flow of arrivals, there were only six people on Christmas Island last year, six people, six people, there are now over 1900 on that island because of this government’s policies and its costing $81,000 per person who turns up.

JASON CLARE: $81,000 …

ASHLEIGH GILLON: That is quite complicated …

JASON CLARE: … compares with half a million dollars per person for the Pacific Solution.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: But, Jason your politics (inaudible) …

JASON CLARE: What a waste of money, what a waste of money

SCOTT MORRISON: You’re assuming that’s the only option that’s out there (inaudible).

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Okay, let’s look at the …

JASON CLARE: What a waste of money.

SCOTT MORRISON: You guy aren’t looking …

JASON CLARE: What a waste of money.

SCOTT MORRISON: … any other option other than bring people to the mainland.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Okay, no one can hear us …

JASON CLARE: What a waste of money.

SCOTT MORRISON: That’s your plan.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … we’re all talking …

SCOTT MORRISON: Sure.

JASON CLARE: What a waste of money.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … just on the politics of this, Jason, as long as the boats keep coming these complex arguments, I’m not sure that they flow through to voters at the level that we’ve just been discussing …

JASON CLARE: Maybe not, maybe not.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … about the legal arguments but as long as these boats keep coming it’s fair for the Coalition to keep bringing this up as an issue and it’s getting through to the voters.

JASON CLARE: Well, well they’ll continue to play politics on this I’m sure but the people I talk to understand that a civil war has just ended in Sri Lanka. Next month is the 35th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the end of a war in Vietnam that’s when people got on boats and came to Australia, the same thing is happening here. Now, Scott debated this issue at Sydney University a couple of weeks ago with Doctor Mary Crock who is an expert in international law and she said to Scott that the only pull factor at play here is the Liberal Party rhetoric that it was the scare campaign by the Liberal Party that was encouraging people smugglers in Indonesia, so there you go.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: We have run out of time Scoot Morrison, I’m sure you will be taking up this argument in Question Time …

SCOTT MORRISON: Can I correct one thing?

ASHLEIGH GILLON: … this afternoon. We actually have run out of time we’ve got to get to the news, sorry Scott.

JASON CLARE: Next time, mate.

SCOTT MORRISON: Next time we’ll be together again.

JASON CLARE: Yes, I hope so.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: We’ll look forward to Question Time today; we should all be counting the number of references to Peter Costello that should be fun to watch.