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

My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer the Prime Minister to the 255 asylum seekers on board a boat in the port of Merak and the statement made by them yesterday:

… we are the same as the 78 on the Oceanic Viking. We are refugees and should be treated equally …

Under the Prime Minister’s new fast-track access policy will he now offer what he himself has described as a standard and thoroughly ‘non-extraordinary’ deal to the asylum seekers on board the boat in the port of Merak; and, if he does not propose to do so, could he tell the House why?

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

I thank the honourable member for his question. The first thing I would say in response to his question—and to one asked question earlier today—is that he cites as his authority (a) today the statements from individual asylum seekers and (b) in question time, I think, a week or two ago the statements of people smugglers themselves as underpinning the veracity of the question. I would simply draw that to the House’s attention. The honourable member cites as his authority these untested statements of an individual asylum seeker and the untested statements of people smugglers themselves. That is the first point I would make. The second point I would make is that, as the honourable member would be fully aware, the resettlement arrangements for asylum seekers in Indonesia are coordinated by the UNHCR, and they do so in cooperation with resettlement countries right across the world, of which there are some 16 to 21, and with some additional voluntary arrangements as well. Thirdly, as I said in the House earlier today, it is entirely consistent with the 400 or so who were granted permanent residency in Australia by the previous government from detention centres in Indonesia as well, and that will be the case, obviously, as we work our way through resettlement procedures with other resettlement countries. That is normal.

Finally, in terms of the boat that he refers to at Merak, I would simply draw the honourable member’s attention to this: first of all, when it comes to those who came into the custody of the Australian vessel, that was in the Indonesia search and rescue area; secondly, the call went out from the Indonesians for assistance because they had no vessel in place; thirdly, we then answered that call, as I assume those opposite would ask us to do in response to any call for assistance under international maritime law; fourthly, with the consent of the Indonesian authorities, that vessel was then brought to shore; and, fifthly, we are therefore processing, in Indonesia, those on board, as you would expect. As for the vessel at Merak, the honourable member would also be familiar with the fact that this vessel was interdicted in Indonesian waters by the Indonesian navy and therefore the circumstances surrounding its interdiction and the particular responsibilities of Indonesia associated with it are of a different type.

I say to the honourable member also that I still find it passing strange that here we are in the country’s parliament and it is getting on for 100 days since we have had a question on jobs and nearly 30 days since we have had a question on the economy. I think it is time they gave Joe a go! He is back from paternity leave—congratulations on the birth of a new addition to the family. We want Joe to have a go! The Treasurer is getting lonely up here; we would like some questions on the economy. And we would also like those opposite to reflect upon the range of priorities which affect the interests of working families across the country, not all of whom are necessarily subject to the campaign of fear being conducted by those opposite on this matter.