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

My question is to the Prime Minister. In the light of the arrival of another boatload of unauthorised asylum seekers intercepted off Christmas Island today, will the Prime Minister confirm whether the government intends to process unauthorised arrivals of asylum seekers on the mainland when the Christmas Island detention centre is full?

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

As the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has said on a number of occasions, the Christmas Island facility has sufficient capacity within it at present. He has also indicated on the public record that further provision has been made at an associated facility in Darwin. The government has made no bones about the fact that we will maintain a policy of mandatory detention for the speedy and proper processing of asylum seekers. This challenge, as I said in a press conference earlier today, has been with us in the past and will remain with us into the future—as it remains with other countries around the world.

However, there is a key difference in approach. We believe in an approach which is balanced, which is tough but humane, when it comes to the challenge of asylum seekers. Yet we have on the part of the Leader of the Opposition a complete abandonment of principle in his response to the statements today by the member for O’Connor. This government makes no bones about the fact that we maintain a policy of mandatory detention to ensure that asylum seekers undertake health, identity and security checks when they arrive. However, the member for O’Connor went out there today and, effectively, claimed that every second or third boat arriving in Australia is carrying terrorists. That is what the member for O’Connor has, in effect, alleged today.

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked very specifically whether he would confirm that asylum seekers arriving once Christmas Island is full will be processed on the mainland. He was not asked about anything else and therefore this is not relevant to the question.

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

Before giving the Prime Minister the call I wish to make some comments to the point of order made by the member for Sturt. The Prime Minister is being relevant under the practices that have been carried out in this chamber. Members can shake their heads, but those are the facts. The failure has been of the House not to address the problems that people feel concerned about. All I say is that one of the great problems is that the same standing order about debate that applies to the question has not applied to answers. I suggest that members, collectively, of the House, if they feel frustrated in any way, might address that as part of their frustration. 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

The question went to the processing of asylum seekers, and specifically in relation to a recently arrived boat. What I was outlining to the Leader of the Opposition in my response was the procedures we have in place for the processing on Christmas Island, the capacity which exists on that island and the reserve capabilities which the Attorney-General has referred to on a number of occasions in the debate so far.

Furthermore, I was saying that, when it comes to the question of processing, that of itself is a product of our wider approach to policy on asylum seekers and the approach which we adopt in this place in the midst of the current debate about alternative approaches—hence the remarks which I have made already in this chamber today about the remarks made outside by the member for O’Connor. The member for O’Connor in his remarks outside today effectively claimed that every second or third boat arriving in Australia with asylum seekers is carrying terrorists. We can have the member for O’Connor seek to take a personal explanation, I am sure. And I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will be keen to explain why he has chosen not to distance himself from the comments made by the member for O’Connor as well.

For the record, nearly three-quarters of a million people have come to this country as refugees since the Second World War. In the period of the Howard government, 150,000 people came to this country as refugees. In the period of the Howard government nearly 15,000 came here as asylum seekers by boat. Ninety-five per cent of the temporary protection visas issued by the Howard government for asylum seekers resulted in permanent residency being granted. These are the facts which actually underpin this debate.

If the Leader of the Opposition has one shred of credibility, one shred of decency, on the question of asylum seekers, he would stand on his feet, repudiate the member for O’Connor and withdraw his support for the endorsement of the member for O’Connor to contest the next election on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The House will come to order.

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

What we have had today is, frankly, a question of character on display on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. He convened a press conference at a quarter to two and was given an opportunity to distance himself; instead, he chose to embrace—

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

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

Order! It is not helpful and I ask the member for Sturt to withdraw.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott interjecting

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

I have this difficulty with the member for Warringah giving me advice all the time about it. I have indicated that I lower the bar a bit when these things are done by way of interjection, and I am asking the member for Sturt to withdraw.

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

Mr Speaker, I hear what you say, but what the Prime Minister said is not true, and, therefore, what is it if it is not what I said it was?

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

No, the member for Sturt—

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

But I will withdraw.

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

Yes, and he will be very careful about the way that he approaches the dispatch box and uses techniques to get things on the record.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Even under the terms of your previous ruling, the Prime Minister is now straying far from relevance on his answer.

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

The Prime Minister has the call and he, I hope, will be coming to a conclusion in his answer.

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

I thank, of course, the member for Menzies for his intervention, because he strayed a long way indeed from any decency in immigration policy when he occupied that portfolio.

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

Order! The Prime Minister will return to the question.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regard those remarks as deeply offensive and I demand they be withdrawn.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

It will assist the House if the Prime Minister withdraws.

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

Of course, Mr Speaker, to assist the House.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The Prime Minister, as members would have heard if the hubbub had died down, has withdrawn.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The House might just assist by exercising a degree of self-discipline.

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

On the question of immigration policy, the challenge which the Leader of the Opposition faced at a quarter to two this afternoon when he went out to conduct his own press conference on this matter was in fact to distance himself from the member for O’Connor. He chose not to do so. Therefore, we can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition embraces the remarks made by the member for O’Connor. He finds no problem with them. By virtue of his silence, he chooses to embrace them. When the shadow minister for immigration was asked about these comments earlier today, I am advised that she had no comment to make about the comments made by the member for O’Connor—a conspicuous display of courage on the part of the member for Murray in this debate.

So we are left in this chamber asking this question: will, for the first time on this matter of asylum seekers policy, the Leader of the Opposition choose to lead his party or simply choose to follow the lead—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, you invited the Prime Minister to wind up his answer before. He has now gone on to further points.

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

The member for Menzies will resume his seat.

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

Winding me up!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The real leader up the back!

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I have five or six candidates on my right to be invited to leave the chamber with the member for O’Connor and you can have your discussions outside. But I do not think it assists the ability of even the Prime Minister to complete his answer when there is this discussion across the chamber in that manner. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

The Leader of the Opposition had a simple challenge today, which was to step up to the plate and provide leadership. He failed to do so. What we have seen is an abandonment of principle and an abandonment of policy on the part of the Liberal Party on this debate on asylum seekers. What we have seen before is again unfolding, old faithful in the Liberal Party campaign handbook, which is the politics of fear and the politics of smear. This is a sad and sorry day when the character of the Leader of the Opposition has been put to question: would he stand up for a matter of principle and repudiate the member for O’Connor and his extraordinary remarks today or embrace them by his silence? He has chosen a course of action which shows an absolute want of courage and moral leadership on this most important question for the nation.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, 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 government’s response to people-smuggling?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. The government is committed to a tough but humane policy on immigration. The immigration policy that we have taken in relation to people smugglers embraces a range of measures which are in part consistent with those adopted by the previous government and includes enhancements which have been embraced by this government as well. Furthermore, in dealing with the challenge of asylum seekers worldwide, we will do so on the basis of a humane policy consistent with our international obligations.

The government has embraced this policy on immigration in part because the Liberal government which preceded it failed in a policy called the Pacific solution. The Pacific solution was ineffective and inhumane. It stripped away the dignity of human beings, most of whom are now lawfully living in Australia under decisions taken by the Howard government.

The Liberal Party defend the Pacific solution based on one claim and one claim alone. They claim that the Pacific solution caused the reduction in asylum seekers coming to Australia between 2001 and 2003. Unfortunately, this claim does not stand up when compared with the global figures of the time. They are as follows. The Liberal Party need to reflect on the fact that around the world we saw decreases in the arrival of asylum seekers across this period. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum worldwide dropped from 52,000 to 27,000—a drop of 48 per cent. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally dropped from 50,000 to 14,000—a decrease of 73 per cent. Between 2001 and 2003, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally dropped from 14,000 to 5,600—a decrease of 61 per cent.

The decrease in asylum seekers we experienced arriving in Australia after the introduction of the Pacific solution happened at exactly the same time as decreases were occurring worldwide. The number of arrivals went down in Australia; they went down in the United Kingdom; they went down in Europe; they went down around the world.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was stopped here, quite a different performance.

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

The only problem that the Pacific solution solved was the Liberal Party’s predisposition to find the next scare campaign, about which the member for Berowra now, interestingly, interjects. The success of the Pacific solution was in many respects trumpeted by those opposite as an effective response to the real problem of asylum seekers. In fact, it did no such thing if you examine carefully the global statistics from the time. That is myth No. 1.

What is myth No. 2? Myth No. 2 from the Liberal Party is that this government’s new tough and humane immigration policy caused the current increase in asylum seekers arriving in Australia. That is exactly what they argue day in, day out on the doors and in the particular form of expression used by the member for Murray, the member for O’Connor and other members with a similar approach to these questions. Unfortunately, once again, this claim is simply false when compared again against the global figures. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Iraqis claiming asylum globally increased from 14,000 to 42,000—an increase of 193 per cent. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Sri Lankans claiming asylum globally increased from 5,000 to nearly 10,000—an increase of in excess of 75 per cent. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally increased from 7,000 to 18,000, a 139 per cent increase.

The increase in asylum seekers we are experiencing in Australia is happening at exactly the same time everywhere across the world. It is happening in Australia, it is happening in the United Kingdom, it is happening in Europe and it is happening around the world. When the global asylum claims go up around the world they also go up for Australia; when they go down around the world they also go down for Australia. That is myth No. 2.

Let us explore myth No. 3, which goes to the purported implication by the member for Murray, among others, that they have advocated a different policy in the past since this government has been elected. This is a very interesting point indeed because every time the Liberal Party get to their feet on the question of asylum seekers there is always a bit of a wink-wink, nudge-nudge that they actually have represented a different approach in the period since the last election. Let us subject this to a little scrutiny as well and actually go to the detail. When the government chose to abolish temporary protection visas, what did those opposite do? They did nothing. They did not vote against it one bit—absolute inaction. They now, however, seek to pretend that something was different.

Let us go to the other one, which is the whole question of an alternative policy which was considered by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The committee recommended that, as a priority, the Australian government introduce amendments to the Migration Act—

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

Dr Stone interjecting

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

You always know when the member for Murray is in trouble: she starts interjecting at a pace of knots. The committee recommended that, as a priority, the Australian government introduce amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to enshrine in legislation the reforms to immigration detention policy announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans. Sharman Stone, the member for Murray, was a member of that same parliamentary committee and said, ‘Labor is very much echoing what we did.’ Then, when asked if she welcomed the report’s recommendations to finetune the system, she said, ‘I do.’ On 16 April this year the member for Murray ruled out the reopening of offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. That is the Pacific solution. I quote the member for Murray again, as she studies her documents carefully knowing that these actually reflect what she has put on the public record:

We no longer have that requirement because we’ve got an alternative place which is in our excised migration zone, Christmas Island.

Myth No. 1, myth No. 2 and myth No. 3. What they have engaged in instead is simply the politics of fear. What they have sought to do is to deliberately cultivate a culture of fear in Australia about this because they, consistent with those who have gone before them, believe that this represents an excellent political strategy for the opposition rather than a real solution to the problem.

This is the party of the Pacific solution, this is the party of kids behind razor wire, this is the party of Vivian Alvarez and this is the party of Cornelia Rau—as those opposite who have previously held that office as migration ministers bury their heads again in their papers pretending that none of this ever happened and all can be carefully and precisely airbrushed from history. In fact, it cannot be so. The Liberal Party fear and smear campaign on this matter has no basis in fact, no basis in policy and no basis in morality. But the time has come for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and show some leadership on this question, to lead for the first time rather than always to follow.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House which organisation will detain, house and process asylum seekers who are apprehended by Indonesian government patrols intercepting boats en route to Australia? Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether these people will remain in detention longer than the 90 days they would be detained in Australia and, if so, how much longer and where they will be resettled?

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

As I said in response to a question in this place yesterday, this government makes no apology whatsoever for the fact that it is expanding its cooperation with the Indonesian government in the area of people smuggling. That is because we are dealing with a global problem and a regional problem which requires the highest level of coordination with our friends and partners in Indonesia. The honourable gentleman’s first part of his question dealt with who actually is responsible for the processing within Indonesia. That of course is a matter for the Indonesian government. I would imagine that would involve the office of the UNHCR as well. The outcome of that processing—where individuals are resettled, how long a period of time that takes or how many of those individuals are sent back to a country of origin—is, of course, contingent on a proper UNHCR approval process. That is why we cooperate in these matters with the Indonesian government—because we believe it is the right approach for the future.

The honourable member asked a question about the processing of asylum seekers in Indonesia and yesterday, when he asked questions, he went to the point of the source of the asylum seekers arriving, namely, his questions about Afghanistan. What I found remarkable about the question yesterday was how the Leader of the Opposition fundamentally misrepresented the statements made by the Minister for Defence about our policy on Afghanistan. Here is what the defence minister had to say yesterday in the interview which was referred to and then deployed in a particular way by the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is not pushing the envelope of irrelevance; it has broken right out of it.

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

I would remind the Prime Minister that he needs to relate his material to the question.

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

I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would be interested in a question which goes to the possible links between terrorist training in Afghanistan and asylum seekers in the region, given his decision to embrace the position taken by the member for O’Connor today. He inferred yesterday that the government’s policy on Afghanistan had changed. I conclude on this, Mr Speaker. This is what the defence minister had to say yesterday—

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked a question about who would be managing the process in Indonesia, whether the process might take longer than 90 days and where they would be resettled. He was not asked a question about the defence minister’s earlier—

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will listen carefully to the conclusion of the Prime Minister’s answer.

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

Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Of course, this is relevant to the truthfulness which underpins various of the assertions that we hear in this place, because the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that the government had embraced a policy for early withdrawal from Afghanistan. In the interview upon which he had based that, the defence minister says ‘I haven’t of course put a timeline on completing the training task’ in Afghanistan. The verballing that we had from those opposite of the defence minister yesterday suggests the care and attention they dedicate to truth in this general debate on asylum seekers where the overriding objective is the politics of fear and smear.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Has the minister seen suggestions of serious health risks posed by asylum seekers? What are the facts and what actions are the government taking?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for this question. She has had a longstanding interest in ensuring that our immigration policies are appropriate. Of course considerations of health concerns are serious ones and if raised properly would be issues that should be part of this discussion. In fact, most people in this House would be aware that one of the key purposes of a mandatory detention policy is to ensure that health, identity and security checks can be properly undertaken. We believe that these processes are a prudent course of action and an appropriate precaution.

However, I do not think that it assists the debate on this very serious issue to have members of the opposition comparing asylum seekers to cattle that spread foot and mouth disease. It is important to ensure that any people coming to and settling in our community are not going to spread disease. We take necessary, careful and precautionary action. One of the key reasons that we have a mandatory detention policy is to ensure that adequate health checks can be undertaken while people are detained to ensure that the community is properly protected.

As I said, I do not think that it assists the debate at all to have outrageous comparisons being made. It would serve all in the House well to go back to the basics. It is a policy that was adhered to by a previous Labor government; it was a policy that was adhered to by the previous coalition government. Health checks have always been a fundamental part of our immigration policies and particularly our mandatory detention policies. It might be well if the Leader of the Opposition could remind some members of his party to keep that in mind and take a sensible approach to ensure that health checks can be undertaken but that we do not have inflammatory comments made that might turn this into an even uglier debate.