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

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his persistent denial of a special deal to entice the 78 asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking. Is the Prime Minister aware of the following answer from his immigration minister when he was asked today on radio if the terms of the resolution are unique. He said:

Well, they are unique in the sense that there is an agreement between the Indonesian government and Australia to resolve a particular unusual circumstance.

Does the Prime Minister continue to deny there was a special deal to provide fast-track access to settlement in Australia?

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

Once again I welcome all questions from the member for Murray, particularly given her confused position yesterday on whether the Liberal Party supports the boat having gone to Australia or to Indonesia. Our approach was that it should be processed in Indonesia. Her reading yesterday of her quotation was that her preference on balance was that it should be processed—

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 on relevance. How could it be relevant under the standing orders for the Prime Minister to be answering a question he was asked yesterday, and he has admitted he was answering a question he was asked yesterday. He should answer the question he has been asked today.

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

There is no point of order. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

I again thank the honourable member for Murray for her question and I was simply drawing the House’s attention to the fact that yesterday a reasonable interpretation of her remarks was that the position of the Liberal Party was that this vessel should have been processed in Australia rather than Indonesia. That is the reverse position of the government. The agreement we have reached with the Indonesian government, given the circumstances where this boat was identified, in the Indonesian search and rescue area, and it having been permitted to then land at an Indonesian port, was that it should therefore be processed in Indonesia. That is our approach, in contrast to yours—absolutely clear. As for the immigration minister’s statements today, I have not seen them. I fully support the public and private comments of the immigration minister, including his remarks today on how this matter has been handled.