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 to his answer yesterday that decisions about the 11-day stand-off involving the Oceanic Viking and the 78 asylum seekers aboard it were being made by the National Security Adviser in his department. I ask the Prime Minister: is the National Security Adviser reporting directly to the Prime Minister on this issue and have any decisions been referred to the Prime Minister? Further, on how many occasions, if any, has the National Security Committee of Cabinet met to consider this fiasco?

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

The first thing I would say is that, as the Indonesian foreign minister said last night, in handling this matter Indonesia has an abundance of patience and so does Australia, because we intend to process this complex matter over a period of time and each of these circumstances is different, as they have been in the past.

Therefore, to go to the second part of the honourable member’s question, which goes to the decision-making processes of this government, as I said to the House yesterday on operational matters, that lies within the purchase of the National Security Adviser. As the honourable member would know, that individual served with distinction in the previous government as well. Furthermore, the National Security Adviser both periodically briefs my own office and periodically briefs other cabinet ministers. On the question of cabinet deliberations on that, I am sure they are being considered by relevant cabinet committees over an extended period of time, and not just in relation to the matters which have arisen in the case of this particular vessel.

These are the normal processes of government. The National Security Adviser is doing a first-class job. He is an independent public servant who has served serve governments of both political persuasions with distinction.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the developments relating to the Australian Customs vessel the Oceanic Viking?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. As the House would know, some 44 identified suspected illegal entry vehicles have come to Australian—

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Vessels.

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

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was not asked about alternative views. The people smugglers want to know what you are going to do.

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

The member for Cook will resume his seat. Again, to the extent that it was a point of order on relevance, it is not an opportunity to ask an addendum question. The Prime Minister has the call and is responding to the question.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have that man of constant principle, the member for Berowra, who has always maintained a consistency of line when it comes to asylum seekers over years past. The font of all advice on this, apart from Senator Ronaldson, is as follows:

When asked this question, colleagues, by no means ever answer it.

Never answer the question. What would you have done with a vessel in distress or, secondly, where would you have taken it—Indonesia, Christmas Island or the Australian mainland? They are the two questions which they do not want to answer.

But I do love the member for Sturt almost as much as the member for Murray. He intervened in a particular way in an interview on 29 October, when he was asked:

Would the opposition suggest that the government use force to remove these people or bring them to Australia, because what else could they do?

Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt, said:

Well, look, Kieran, the opposition is not going to let the government off the hook by making ourselves and our position on these issues an excuse for Labor to try and distract the media and the public.

There we go. I am happy to table what the member for Sturt says. It should always be immortalised in the Hansard. You never know when you will need it in the future. What we have here is an absolute pattern of opportunistic behaviour. On the key questions of what should happen with this vessel, how it should be handled, whether it should be rescued and, on top of that, where it should be taken, their answer, consistent with the advice of the good old member for Berowra, is: whatever you do, become a small target. Take no position.

This government’s policy is clear-cut when it comes to asylum seekers. I say to those opposite: their policy in response is as follows. Simply, in four words, their policy is: all fear, no solutions. Our approach is clear; theirs is driven by opportunism.

The Indonesian and Australian governments recognise this is a complex challenge for the future. Oh, would that those opposite recognise that there are practical issues in this concern, which go to people’s lives and the future integrity of the Australian migration system.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the security clearance granted to the Oceanic Viking allowing it to remain in Indonesian waters. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the clearance expires tomorrow? What arrangements are being made to extend it?

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

Australian officials and Indonesian officials are processing this matter as a matter of course. As far as the presence of the vessel is concerned, I draw the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s attention to one thing. It is as follows: the foreign affairs minister of Indonesia said last night of Indonesia: ‘Indonesia has great patience in handling this matter’—so does Australia. That is the basis upon which the vessel’s presence in the port will be considered in the future.

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

Mr Speaker—

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

The Prime Minister has concluded.