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

My question is once again to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House about the details of the arrangements promised to the 56 remaining asylum seekers expected to shortly disembark the Oceanic Viking? How do these arrangements differ from those that apply to the thousands of other asylum seekers in Indonesian facilities now awaiting resettlement?

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

The Leader of the Opposition asks about the processes which apply to the individuals currently on board the vessel. Can I draw his attention first of all to the correspondence from the secretary of the department of immigration dated 16 November, which describes the non-extraordinary nature of the procedures which apply here. Secondly, can I draw the honourable member’s attention to the further letter which was tabled on Monday, which is the message which was drafted by the minister-counsellor for immigration at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. These two documents were tabled in the House on Monday. One concerned the generic procedures which apply and the circumstances which go to the Indonesians and ourselves as far as this vessel is concerned and, secondly, to those things which have been provided to the vessel in Indonesia.

Can I say to those opposite on the very important question of arrangements as they pertain to those on board this vessel that we had a particularly interesting contribution today from the shadow minister for immigration. We ask for some consistency in approach on the part of all those in this place. The shadow minister was asked today: ‘So you think more people will be coming as a result of the government’s refusal to allow the boats to come, as the refugees themselves wanted, to Christmas Island?’ In other words, do you think they should have gone on to Christmas Island, Australia? So what did the shadow minister for immigration say in response to that question? She said, ‘Absolutely.’ In other words, her argument here is that if you therefore instead were to ensure that the boat went on to Australia—that is, to Christmas Island for processing—it would result in a better outcome in terms of, let us call it, a message through to people smugglers. I would suggest to the shadow minister for immigration that, if she is going to go out and make up lines on the way through, she should be concerned about the actual consistency of policy. Not only have those opposite sought to have no policy on border protection but they sought to have no policy on the management of this vessel until the shadow minister for immigration stood up today and said it would have been far better for this boat to in fact have been taken to Australia for processing. That is the logical inference from what she says, because she says, ‘Absolutely’ in response to the question: ‘Should we have acceded to the requests of the refugees themselves?’ If she has a different interpretation of that I wait for her clarification in the House, because that is the way it reads to us.

We have a clear approach to this. I suggest that those opposite instead apply themselves to some consistency of policy, the likes of which we have not had in this entire debate.