Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

vessels have come to this part of the world since this government has been in office. While the previous government was in office there were some 244 identified vessels. That brought something in the vicinity of 15,000 people to these shores. In fact, while the average over the years was about 20, in particular years under the previous government that number surged to nearly 100. This always is dependent upon various global factors at work, as any reasonable-minded member of this House would conclude. Each of these vessels involves its own individual complexity and must therefore be handled according to the circumstances at hand.

The Oceanic Viking is a case of a humanitarian rescue of a boat in distress on the high seas with 78 passengers on board. This is not a boat that had reached the Australian mainland or our territorial waters; rather, it was a boat that became distressed in Indonesia’s search and rescue area, and the Indonesian search and rescue authorities sought assistance from Australia. As Indonesia’s foreign minister said last night, their first concern was humanitarian—humanitarian concern for passengers in distress.

Since being contacted by the Indonesian government for assistance, the Australian government has made two fundamental decisions in relation to this case. First, we decided to rescue the vessel in distress, consistent with our obligations under international law—the safety of life at sea obligations under which Australian ships have an obligation to assist vessels that are not seaworthy. This duty is reflected, as I said to the House yesterday, in article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both Australia and Indonesia are parties. Australia takes its search and rescue obligations seriously. Therefore, the HMAS Armidale responded to the request for assistance. The passengers on board the distressed vessel were then transferred to the Oceanic Viking.

The second decision was to direct the Oceanic Viking to deliver these people to Indonesia for processing. After the asylum seekers were rescued by an Australian vessel in Indonesia’s search and rescue area, Australian and Indonesian agencies discussed the best practice for the people on board the vessel to be disembarked. The discussions included communications with the Indonesian search and rescue authority. Indonesia requested the Oceanic Viking to proceed to shore in Indonesia to disembark the passengers at the port of Merak. The Indonesian authorities have now requested the Oceanic Viking to anchor on the eastern side of the island of Bintan, off the port of Kijang. The Australian authorities have agreed to that request, as you would expect.

The Australian government is working closely with the Indonesian authorities to facilitate the safe transfer of passengers to land. As the Indonesian foreign minister said quite correctly last night, Indonesia has an abundance of patience in handling these matters. Australia also has great patience in handling these complex matters. As the Indonesian foreign minister said last night, there are unique humanitarian circumstances pertaining to this particular vessel. He is right concerning those circumstances, which I have just described in some detail to the House. The Indonesian foreign minister is right to point out the fact that there is a three-part solution which is necessary here: one dealing with source countries, one dealing with transit countries and one dealing with so-called destination countries. He was right to say that Australia and Indonesia for some years have been working at all three levels. And the Indonesian foreign minister was right to point out the particular circumstances surrounding the proper treatment of children. I reflect carefully on what he had to say last night on that point and I refer also to the advice I provided to the House yesterday. Can I say, therefore, that the cooperation between the two governments on this matter is proceeding. It is a complex case, as there have been many such complex cases in the past. That is our approach to how we are handling this particular matter.

It raises the question, however, as to what the alternative approach would be in this particular circumstance. There are only two alternatives to rescuing such a vessel by Australia. The first is a decision by a government not to rescue such a vessel—that the first alternative. The second is, if you have proceeded to rescue that vessel, do you take it to the nearest Indonesia port, as in this case, or do you bring it to Australia? What this government has done is straightforward. We have responded to an Indonesian request. We have proceeded to rescue this vessel consistent with the obligations of international law and, through consultation with the Indonesian authorities, proceeded to the nearest port in Indonesia. That is our approach.

But what is the alternative approach? It can only be twofold. First, not to assist a vessel in distress—are those opposite suggesting that?—or, second, having interdicted such a vessel to support it and then bring it to Australia rather than to the nearest Indonesian port. They are the alternatives.

So, Mr Speaker, what have those opposite said on policy on these matters? They have criticised us, as you know—from the right, from the left, from in front, from behind and from the centre, all possible when you do not have a policy or made much easier when you do not have a policy. But, on the specific operational characteristics of this, here is a question asked of one of those opposite, in fact my good friend the member for Murray. She was asked on 29 October:

So do you believe Australia should take these people to Christmas Island?

The answer from the forthright shadow minister:

I don’t have all the facts at hand, I have to say.

We go then to Senator Abetz, who was asked:

Where do you see these 78 Sri Lankans ending up, Australia or Indonesia?

The answer from Senator Abetz:

I am unfortunately not the government.

Are we picking up a theme here? Then we have a question to the good old member for Warringah by his party confrere, at least in past times, Alan Jones, who asked him this:

He—

referring to the Prime Minister—

could have brought them to Australia to Christmas Island. Are you saying that’s what should have happened?

The member for Warringah said:

No, I’m not, but that’s certainly what he’s been doing up until now.

Then Alan Jones asked:

What are you saying should have happened?

The member for Warringah replied:

Well, I’m not the government.

We have had a similar response from the Leader of the Opposition. But then we have the great source of all wisdom on these questions, the good old member for Berowra, who, as we know, has form on these questions. When he was asked only a few days ago:

What would the opposition do differently to change the nature of things at the moment?

What does the member for Berowra publicly recommend on the record?

I have advised all my colleagues that—

See this speech in context