Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s claim that his changes to Australia’s border protection policies have no connection whatsoever with the dramatic increase in unauthorised arrivals since the changes were made last year. I also refer the Prime Minister to last night’s 60 Minutes program, which included an interview with a self-proclaimed people smuggler using the name Majid. When asked whether Australia was tough or soft on asylum seekers coming by boat he replied, ‘Soft.’ Why won’t the Prime Minister admit what Majid and the Australian Federal Police have recognised—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad our border protection is a matter of such hilarity to the government.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this side we take it seriously.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House will come to order.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why won’t the Prime Minister admit what Majid and the Australian Federal Police have recognised that it is in fact the government’s changes to border protection policy which have provided people smugglers with a powerful marketing tool to induce more and more asylum seekers to risk their lives coming to Australia?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. I would say in response to his question that, as he would know, people-smuggling has been a challenge for this country for 20 or 30 years—in fact, going back many decades. I also say to the honourable gentleman that, in the period that he occupied the government benches, the Howard government saw nearly 15,000 people arrive in this country by boat—altogether nearly 250 boats. One of the elements of policy which I assume he wishes this government to return to is temporary protection visas. I draw his attention to the fact that 90 per cent plus of those granted temporary protection visas by the then government ended up settling in Australia.

I, therefore, draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to the fact that this is a problem which has been with Australia for a long time. It will be with Australia for a long time into the future because it is always driven by what is happening in our region and the wider world, as it confronts other countries as well. Our policy is unapologetically tough but humane. We will continue to implement that policy into the future.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the importance of regional cooperation in dealing with the challenge of people-smuggling?

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

I thank the member for Banks for his question. The Australian government is working hard with our regional neighbours to combat the challenge of people-smuggling. Our regional neighbours, like us, recognise that there are no easy options in tackling this challenge. For all countries these are tough challenges; they are not easy challenges. Our policy, as I said to those opposite just before, is unapologetically tough when it comes to people smugglers and unapologetically humane when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers. It is a tough but humane approach.

The risks on the high seas are too great, the tragedy of disasters too high and the incentives for people smugglers too great not to attempt to reduce the number of boats leaving Indonesia or other countries. We, the government, make no apology for this regional approach. The truth is that people impacted by such a policy will not support it. It will not be praised by all Australians—it is not praised by all Australians. Asylum seekers do not want to settle in Indonesia, nor do they wish to be processed in Indonesia, but no-one wants to see a repeat of the tragedies on the high seas that we have seen in times past, no-one wants to see a repeat of the sinkings and the drownings that we have seen in the past and no-one wants to encourage people smugglers to put the lives of innocent people at risk. That is why we must do all we credibly can to reduce the number of boats that are leaving regional countries.

If detention and processing in Indonesia help prevent some of these perilous journeys then we must support such a policy. We must continue working with Indonesia, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organisation for Migration to improve facilities in Indonesia and the speed with which asylum seekers’ applications are processed. If asylum seekers processed in Indonesia are found to be genuine refugees then Australia, as previous Australian governments have done, together with other countries around the world, will continue to assist with the resettlement of such refugees. We must also continue to cooperate with Indonesia and other regional neighbours to do whatever is possible to prevent people-smuggling operations before they begin. Our policy objectives are clear cut—to deter people smugglers, in cooperation with regional partners, and to reduce the number of people who put their lives at risk in the hands of people smugglers.

This morning I returned from the East Asia Summit, where again government leaders from around the world and around our region recognised that this in fact is a transnational challenge. The summit communique released yesterday said:

We—

the 16 governments of the East Asia Summit—

reaffirmed our commitment to combat people smuggling and trafficking in persons. We stressed the importance of continued bilateral and regional cooperative efforts, including through the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, to address the impact of these and other transnational crimes.

Our regional partners and friends in east Asia recognise that this is a global problem. It is a regional problem. Forty-two million displaced people around the world, including 15.2 million who are refugees, and the increases in Iraqi, Afghan and Sri Lankan outflows over the last three years, has gone up respectively in the vicinity of 75, 100, 150 to nearly 200 per cent. We have also had this challenge in transit countries.

I note from some of the commentary that has been around of late that there is somehow a suggestion that Australian support for Indonesian efforts in this area—including in the processing facilities within Indonesia—is somehow a new initiative on the part of this government. For the information of the House, the Howard government launched initiatives to provide around $25 million for capacity-building initiatives in Indonesia over the last five years, including the refurbishment of detention facilities in Indonesia through the IOM, two Indonesian detention facilities at Tanjung Pinang and Jakarta, and for the training of Indonesian officials. It was also for the establishment of a network of IOM outreach officers to assist Indonesian authorities to monitor and manage a regular migration flow—some $2.6 million.

Furthermore, since 1999 Australian governments have provided $34.7 million to support humanitarian assistance in Indonesia, including accommodation, food and medical assistance for irregular migrants to Indonesia intercepted en route to Australia. For some to suggest that this is somehow a new departure in policy I think does not reflect accurately upon the historical record. This government’s policy, as I have said before, seeks to take a hard-line approach with people smugglers and seeks to adopt a humane approach with asylum seekers. It is the balanced approach adopted by mainstream governments around the world. We have also invested a record amount in surveillance and interception. There was some $654 million additionally announced in the last budget and in 2008-09 the total number of flying hours and sea days undertaken by vessels and aircraft—conducting surveillance in our northern waters—was more than in the previous year, with the number of sea days in 2008-09 being 25 per cent more than 2005-06. Our policy is also unapologetically humane. We have ended mandatory detention for children. Some opposite seemed to be calling for its return. We have abolished the failed temporary protection visas. Some opposite seem to be advocating its return. We have scrapped the so-called Pacific solution. Now those opposite, it seems, advocate its return.

In the period that the government has been in, we have had some 85 disruptions of planned smuggling adventures since September 2008, involving nearly 2,000 persons. That has been with the assistance of the Indonesian national police. The government has already returned almost 100 people because their asylum claims have been refused. Since September 2008, 15 people have been convicted in Australian courts and eight separate people are facing people-smuggling prosecutions. Further, currently before the Australian courts are 38 defendants in 14 separate matters, with three defendants in three separate matters involving organisers and facilitators. This is the practical action which goes to a practical and balanced policy on dealing with the scourge of people smugglers and the humanitarian plight of asylum seekers. It is a balanced approach, a mainstream approach; one which unapologetically also engages our friends and partners in the region, as previous Australian governments—were they to honestly reflect—have done as well.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that the Prime Minister table the document—the lengthy statement from which he was reading.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was the Prime Minister reading from a document, or is the document confidential?

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

Yes it is, Mr Speaker.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister, again, to last night’s report on 60 Minutes and the revelations from self-proclaimed people smugglers that, in taking asylum seekers to Australia, they do not seek to reach the Australian mainland but instead deliberately seek to be intercepted by Australian maritime patrols. Has the Prime Minister received advice that confirms people smugglers are now deliberately seeking to be picked up by Australian maritime patrols?

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

This government—together with previous governments, I would hope—would always adhere to its obligations under international maritime law when it comes to requests for assistance on the high seas. I would assume that all governments would adhere to their obligations because Australian citizens who find themselves at sea in parallel circumstances would I think expect other governments around the world to adhere to the same international protocols which govern—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order about relevance. This is not about safety at sea; it is about tactics of people smugglers. We are asking a straightforward question and the House deserves a straightforward answer.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

The question dealt with anything from what was on television last night through to what was effective on the ground, including our obligations under international maritime law. So what I am answering at the moment is that part of the question which dealt with obligations under international maritime law, which I think all governments—all civilised governments around the world—would seek to adhere to. The honourable gentleman refers to, it seems, his new source on television last night. I assume he has at least received some email communication from that source and I assume it has been properly authenticated. Can I say to the honourable gentleman that this is a serious debate for the country.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about what advice the Prime Minister had received about people smugglers deliberately seeking to be detected by Australian patrols. The Prime Minister is completely off the topic. Can you bring him back?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has the call; he is responding to the question.

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

I welcome, always, interventions from the member for Murray, given her complete endorsement of current government policy on immigration only last year. When asked if she supported the government’s approach on migration policy, she said—almost as if she was taking a marriage vow—I do. That is what she said. So I always welcome this consistency in approach on the part of those opposite when it comes to these matters. We have seen it in a few other areas of policy as well: support one thing one day, change our tune the next depending on what is going on with the debate.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister is defying your request for him to be relevant to the question. If he does not want to answer the question he should just sit down. I note that he has all the answers laid out for himself there—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. It is permissible for the Manager of Opposition Business to raise a point of order. It is not then permissible for him, after being brought to order, to continue onto extraneous matter. The Prime Minister has the call; he will respond to the question.

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

The honourable gentleman’s question went to the particular motivations of individuals who were seeking to exit a particular country en route to Australia and whether they were embarked upon deliberate tactics so to do. Obviously, the circumstances with each individual vessel will differ. That is simply the reality. Our job is to respond through the medium of a balanced, fair, tough, humane policy, which we are prosecuting and will continue to do so into the future.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, how is Australia tackling the issue of people smuggling in our region, and how is the Australian government working with the Indonesian government to improve cooperation on people smuggling?

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question about how Australia is responding, together with our region, in particular Indonesia, to the challenge of people smuggling and people movement. Of course, we know that throughout the world today we have over 40 million displaced people with very many of those potentially in our region or displaced towards our region. So regional cooperation is very important.

Australia and Indonesia co-chair the Bali process, which is the regional institution through which, together with the countries of South-East Asia and the Pacific, we deal with these matters on a regional basis. Earlier this year, then Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda and I co-chaired, for the first time in a number of years, the Bali process at ministerial level. Of course, so far as our relationship and our cooperation with Indonesia is concerned, Hassan Wirajuda and I brought into force the Lombok Treaty between Australia and Indonesia when we signed it in Perth in February 2008. The Lombok Treaty, of course, refers to cooperation between Australia and Indonesia on people smuggling, people trafficking and people movement.

As members would be aware, in recent times the Prime Minister and President Yudhoyono, as well as former Foreign Minister Wirajuda and I, have had discussions about what further cooperation there can be between Australia and Indonesia to confront this heightened challenge. It is a heightened challenge in which we now see the potential for large numbers of people to move from Sri Lanka as a result of the civil war there and also as a consequence of what is very clearly now the case of people smugglers using heightened techniques and different and better efforts to avoid disruption and secure their objectives. The government has made it very clear that we are in discussions with Indonesian officials underneath the umbrella of the Lombok Treaty and, effectively, the Bali process to see what else we can do to address this problem.

We are in discussions with Indonesia over how we can be of assistance in terms of greater information sharing, greater intelligence sharing, and how we can work more closely so far as disruption of people-smuggling efforts are concerned within Indonesian waters and generally. We are also in discussions with Indonesia about what more we can do to be of assistance to Indonesia when it comes to the detention of asylum seekers on Indonesian territory, the processing of asylum seekers on Indonesian territory through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and also the assistance of the International Organisation for Migration, and how Australia can be of greater assistance for settlement and resettlement purposes.

These endeavours are not new. As the Prime Minister referred to earlier, it is the case that Australia and Indonesia have cooperated for a number of years, and the previous government in the end worked closely with Indonesia on these matters. For example, when it comes to detention facilities within Indonesia, the previous government, as has the current government, provided assistance to Indonesia for detention centres and to improve the facilities available for detention in Indonesia. It is also the case that both the current government and the predecessor government have worked closely with Indonesian agencies so far as disruption is concerned. I have made it clear, as has the government, that we are open to further assistance to Indonesia so far as detention centres and the facilities and conditions available in detention centres are concerned. I might make the point that today my colleague the Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, is in Indonesia on his way back from Bratislava from the NATO and ISAF meeting. He will be in discussions with the Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law and Security, Minister Suyanto, and we are hopeful that, at the APEC meeting in Singapore in the middle of November, officials will be able to report to the Prime Minister and President Yudhoyono as to progress made on these fronts.

There are some particular matters of interest which I would like draw to the House’s attention. There is, of course, interest in the Oceanic Viking. My most recent advice is that the Oceanic Viking is currently at an anchorage point some 10 nautical miles off the coast of Indonesia and is in discussion with Indonesian officials, including officials on an Indonesian vessel near the Oceanic Viking, as to the disembarkation of the 78 asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking onto Indonesian soil. This will be the subject of ongoing and continuing discussions between Australian and Indonesian officials, but at this stage I am confident that those arrangements will be effected in the course of the day and we certainly look forward very much to a smooth, orderly and appropriate transfer of those asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking to Indonesian territory.

I have also seen suggestions that some detainees or asylum seekers in the Tanjung Pinang detention centre may have been badly treated. I welcome very much the fact that Indonesian police have indicated they are investigating those matters. Australia would, of course, very much want for any asylum seeker held in detention in Indonesia to be treated appropriately. If any serious allegations are made then they need to be investigated by the appropriate authorities. The Indonesian police have indicated that is occurring. I do make the point that detention centres in Indonesia, including the Tanjung Pinang detention centre, on which the previous government and the current government have expended funds to assist in the improvement of facilities, is subject to visits by the International Organisation for Migration and subject to access by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

I conclude by making this point: the theme of the questions from the Leader of the Opposition through question time has been that the only issue relevant, in the Leader of the Opposition’s mind, is the consequences of the government change in policy in this area. I simply make the point to the House this Monday, as I did last Monday—and the response has been deafening in its silence—if the thesis of the opposition is that it is the changes made by the government to immigration and refugee matters that is the cause of the current difficulties, which our entire region faces, then simply tell us which ones you would change. Would you see women and children behind razor wire in Baxter again? Would you see the reintroduction of temporary protection visas? Would you see processing occurring in the Pacific through Nauru or Manus Island? All the Leader of the Opposition has to do is to simply indicate to the House and to the Australian parliament which of these changes he would propose to reintroduce.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the Prime Minister to the Australian Customs vessel, Oceanic Viking, and the 78 asylum seekers who have been on board for eight days since they were intercepted. Have the Prime Minister or his office been involved in the decisions about where this Australian Customs vessel should dock and where these asylum seekers will be detained?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. As far as the specific arrangements concerning the Oceanic Viking are concerned, I would draw her attention to the remarks just made by the Foreign Minister to the House. In terms of the processes involved in the decision making about where the vessel would dock and to whom asylum seekers would then be provided into the care of, those are matters which have obviously occurred in the government, but by which agencies within the government and by which officers, I am unaware. Our obligation with our friends in Indonesia is to work in a clear and practical way, and we have done so.