E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP
LOGAN
SATURDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2018

SUBJECT/S: Liberals’ desperate lies about border security; Medical transfer legislation; Peter Dutton’s cuts to Border Force; Encryption legislation; Body image funding; Liberals’ chaos and division; Huawei

 JIM CHALMERS, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE: Thanks for coming out to Logan this morning. What we saw in the last Parliamentary sitting week - what we've seen all year, what we've seen for much of the last five years - is a steady, stable, united Labor Party under Bill Shorten 100 per cent focused on delivering a fair go for all Australians against a desperately divided, dysfunctional and shambolic Liberal Government playing grubby politics, running from scrutiny, and telling lies about Labor's policies.
 
Unfortunately, they're at it again today with their lies about the medical transfers legislation, which is before the Parliament. That legislation is all about ensuring that sick people in regional processing facilities, including kids, can get the medical treatment that they need without compromising Australia's strong border protection arrangements. It doesn't prevent a minister refusing a medical transfer on the grounds of national security. It just simply ensures that a minister listens to the advice of doctors and that there's more transparency and accountability.

Peter Dutton's comments on this issue are complete and utter lies from a grubby and disgraced and pathological liar in a deeply divided and desperate Government. Peter Dutton knows that the legislation relies on the ASIO Act definition of security, which means that an Immigration Minister can refuse, on National Security grounds, an application for a medical transfer. He should stop lying about Labor's position on this important Bill, which is all about ensuring that people in these facilities, including kids, can get the treatment they need without compromising our strong border protection arrangements.
 
The biggest risks to our border protection arrangements are Peter Dutton's cuts to Border Force at airports, and the fact that there is uncertainty around his own eligibility to even make these decisions on behalf of the Commonwealth. If he truly cared about the integrity of our borders and the integrity of our arrangements, he would refer himself to the High Court to have his eligibility determined. 
 
At the very least, and in the interim, he should stop lying about Labor's policies. Every time the Liberal Party lies about Labor's strong border protection policies, they are a walking, talking billboard for the people smugglers and they should be ashamed of themselves.
 
Over to you.
 
JOURNALIST: If Labor wins Government, can you guarantee 100 per cent that criminals would be rejected for medical transfers by a Labor Immigration Minister?
 
CHALMERS: Of course. By relying on the ASIO Act definition of security, it provides for the Immigration Minister to reject, on national security grounds, applications for medical transfers. We have always said, and we will continue to point out, that Labor has strong border protection policies. We want to ensure that people get the treatment that they need and ministers can continue to reject on national security grounds people that we are worried about coming to Australia.
 
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) 
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): (inaudible)
 
CHALMERS: There were two questions at once there. The answer to Lexie's question is yes.
 
JOURNALIST: Why don't we deal with my four? That's going to be easier than letting these guys ask. Is that OK guys?
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Sure.
 
CHALMERS: OK. Go for it, Lexie.
 
JOURNALIST: So they just want a simple yes or no. Can you guarantee yes or no, you can't guarantee? Short answer.
 
CHALMERS: Yes, we can guarantee that people we are concerned about on national security grounds will not come to Australia, because the minister will continue to have that discretion to apply the ASIO Act definition of national security and to have that power in their hands to reject on national security grounds applications for medical transfers.
 
JOURNALIST: OK, and would motions that passed the Labor Conference about medical transfers force the Federal Parliamentary Party to change your already announced policy on this issue?
 
CHALMERS: We haven't had our National Conference yet, but we've made our view abundantly clear. We are proposing this legislation so that people can get the medical treatment they need, but at the same time ensuring that we don't compromise Australia's strong border protection arrangements. 
 
JOURNALIST: And just finally, on this issue - guys, last one for ABC - the Daily Telegraph said they had new legal evidence that the Government is using saying that these people will slip through the net - paedophiles, murderers etc. Have you seen that legal advice? Do you know if that is the case? Or once again, is this a lie?
 
CHALMERS: I haven't seen that legal advice, but they have form in this regard. These are desperate lies from a desperate Government. And what the Minister seems to be suggesting is that his own ASIO Act is in some way deficient. If he is suggesting that the definition of security in the ASIO Act is insufficient to deal with these kinds of cases, then he should explain himself about why he has let that situation develop. It is our strong view that even with the passage of the legislation that we are supporting in the Parliament, the Minister will continue to have the ability to reject on national security grounds people who make medical transfer applications. And that's because we believe in people getting the medical treatment they need without compromising Australia's strong border protection arrangements.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): OK, can we jump in now from Canberra.
 
CHALMERS: Yep, go for it.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): If the Minister does reject the transfer, can this decision be overturned in the courts?
 
CHALMERS: Those are matters of detail for Shayne Neumann and others to answer. There are of course arrangements around appeals and all sorts of things. But fundamentally, what we are saying and what we are proposing, is that we maintain a very strong stance against people we are concerned about on national security grounds. That will not change under these arrangements. The Government is intent on lying about these arrangements and what's being proposed in the legislation. The legislation is about two things - maintaining strong border protection arrangements, and ensuring that people get the medical treatment that they need.
 
JOURNALIST: But it's your amendment that does say that any decision can be referred to the court. So if a person that's convicted of a crime then wants to challenge the minister's decision or the minister's veto, that could potentially happen, is that what you're saying?
 
CHALMERS: There are already all kinds of appeals that are open to people. We are not proposing a substantial change in those kinds of arrangements. We are saying that under us, the same as under the Government, people who are of a concern to us on national security grounds can continue to be rejected.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Can I go now?
 
CHALMERS: Go for it.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): The Government is saying that there are loopholes; that there are only limited circumstances in which you can get ministerial intervention or ministerial oversight in which it can be used. Are you confident there are no loopholes, and that there is no way that someone can slip through the cracks?
 
CHALMERS: The Government, in making those claims, seems to be suggesting that there is a deficiency in the ASIO Act that defines security and provides the grounds for a Minister to reject an application. If that's the case, then that's something that Peter Dutton must explain.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): One of the things they say is that a Minister can only reject on grounds within the ASIO Act. For example, a terror threat - that sort of thing. But perhaps if you are, say, a drug runner or a small-time thief that you'd still be able to get in. Is there not need to expand perhaps your thoughts around that?
 
CHALMERS: Well again, if Peter Dutton is saying that the powers under the ASIO Act are insufficient, he needs to explain why, and what he's going to do about it. We're relying on his legislation and his ASIO Act that defines security. If he thinks that in some way falls short, then that's a matter for him to explain today.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): And just lastly, Australian Border Force quietly slashing staff numbers at airports - and, of course, we know this is a time when most Australians are headed around the country and overseas. What would Labor like to see done on that?
 
CHALMERS: We think the biggest risks to our border protection arrangements are Peter Dutton's cuts to Border Force at airports and the uncertainty around his own eligibility to make decisions. If Peter Dutton really cared about the integrity of our borders, the integrity of those arrangements, he wouldn't be slashing Border Force staff at our airports, and he would be referring himself to the High Court to clarify his eligibility. It is deeply concerning that Peter Dutton seems to spend all of his time lying about Labor's policies and none of his time ensuring that we have the right amount of Border Force officials at our airports to enforce our laws.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Just last question for Channel Nine. I guess, the Government is setting up for an election showdown on border security. This is an area which they like to fight on because, in the past, they have said that Labor has been weak on border protection. Your response?
 
CHALMERS: The Liberal Government's lies about Labor's border protection policies are all about one thing - trying to distract Australians from the fact that the Liberal Government is a dumpster fire of division and dysfunction and personal recrimination. They don't want Australians to focus on the fact that they have, for five years now, enforced all kinds of cuts and chaos on the Australian people. They don't want the Australian people to focus on the fact that Scott Morrison, as Malcolm Turnbull's Treasurer, was at the scene of the crime for so much of those cuts and so much of that chaos. So they want Australians focused on the lies that they're telling about Labor's policies. I have confidence in the Australian people that they will see beyond Scott Morrison's and Peter Dutton's lies about Labor's policies. They will focus on what matters most, and they will remember that Scott Morrison is the chief architect of the cuts and the chaos that Australians so deeply loathe.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Jim, Jonathan Lea here from Channel Ten. Could I ask you a couple of questions?
 
CHALMERS: Go for it, yep.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): On the encryption legislation, there seems to be some sort of gentlemen's agreement that the amendments would be changed when Parliament resumes in February. We're now hearing from the Government that there is no deal on any amendments and it's kind of too bad, so sad, that's been passed. What's Labor's position there? Are you under the assumption that there are amendments that will be made? Or have you missed your chance now?
 
CHALMERS: Scott Morrison tried to do a runner on Thursday night before these laws could be passed. They were passed because of Labor's initiative and we did so on the condition that our amendments, our concerns, would be addressed when Parliament resumed in February, and that there'd be ongoing Parliamentary committee scrutiny of these laws. There are a lot of concerns that people have in the community about these laws and we've been listening and consulting. We've said all along that we want to make sure that the right arrangements are in place for summer so that Australians are as safe as they can be. At the same time, as we allow ourselves the opportunity in the coming weeks and months to more properly scrutinise the laws and also to have our amendments considered. Scott Morrison may have been prepared to jeopardise Australia's security by doing the runner from Parliament and escaping Parliamentary scrutiny, but Labor was not. It was a difficult decision for Labor to take, but we did the right thing as we always do and we've given ourselves the capacity to improve the laws at a later date by having our amendments considered and by ensuring that the good work of that Parliamentary committee - quite often, the good bipartisan work of that Parliamentary committee - can continue in the coming months.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Twice there you said had your amendments considered. So that would indicate that there is no agreement that those amendments will be acted on?
 
CHALMERS: The condition that we put on supporting the Bills on Thursday night were that those amendments would be considered when the Parliament returned and that the committee would continue to do its good work. It remains to be seen whether the Government keeps faith with that, but those were the conditions that we put on our support. 
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Can I ask quickly on the Nauru medical Bill. Is there any guarantee that Labor will move or won't move a no confidence motion on the Government here? I mean, if you're effectively starting to control the floor of the House, are you going to play silly buggers?
 
CHALMERS: I wouldn't describe it that way, Jonno, first of all. But I don't intend to flag our Parliamentary strategy for February here in Logan City in December. I will say that the Government is a shambles. They don't control a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives. That's partly because they've got members deserting for the crossbench. They've got all kinds of uncertainty around Peter Dutton's eligibility and the eligibility of other members as well. So the Government is a shambles, not just on the floor of the House, but indeed in every respect. They don't command a majority, they haven't been able to explain to the Australian people why Malcolm Turnbull's no longer the Prime Minister. They are a dumpster fire of division and dysfunction and personal recrimination, and I think in that regard - in that context - anything's possible next year. 
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Just quickly, Bill Shorten's written to the Prime Minister asking for support on body image. What's Labor's position there and can you explain why it's important?
 
CHALMERS: I didn't quite hear you then, Jonno.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Bill Shorten has written to Scott Morrison asking him to support more funding to assist with the issue of body image. Obviously, eating disorders and the like. What's the Opposition's position there and why is it important?
 
CHALMERS: One of the most challenging health issues that we have in Australia are the issues around eating disorders, obesity as well, body image - all of these things are very important. Not just for young people, but indeed right throughout the community. Unfortunately, right now we're standing in one of the communities most affected by these kinds of issues. I think it's important where we can, and it's certainly Bill Shorten's approach, to see where we might find common ground with the Government. He's written to the Prime Minister because this should be something above politics - the health of our young people and the broader community - and I hope the Government gets on board for what is a really important issue.
 
JOURNALIST (ON MOBILE): Just finally, Peter Dutton's going to be doing the Government's press conference, we understand, today, but he didn't manage to make it to Parliament for the past few weeks with his injury. A little surprised he's talking today?
 
CHALMERS: I don't know the circumstances of Peter Dutton's injury, but what I do know is that when he stands up he will do what he's always done, which is to lie about Labor's policies in a typical grubby and disgraceful way. I expect more of that today. I expect more of that in the weeks and months to come as the Government become more and more desperate leading up to an election.
 
 JOURNALIST: Shadow Minister, just another question on Huawei. Can I go with this one?
 
CHALMERS: Yeah, Lexie's got one more guys, then we're going to cut it off.
 
JOURNALIST: What's Labor's view on whether Huawei's cable linking China and South America should be linked into Australia's internet network and are you concerned about this issue?
 
CHALMERS: I'm not fully briefed on that issue. I'm sure that we would, as in all these sorts of circumstances, take the advice of the relevant agencies, not jump to a conclusion, but to come to a considered view. That's how we've always approached these sorts of issues, and that's how we always will.
 
Thanks very much everyone, I've got to go.
 
ENDS