Media Release

Transcript- Sky News AM Agenda

Wednesday 21st October 2009

Subjects: border protection, Peter Dutton, ETS

KIERAN GILBERT: The Indonesians have accepted the 78 asylum seekers, Jason, off the Oceanic Viking. It took the Prime Minister in talks with the Indonesian President to achieve that. He can’t do that anytime when there’s an impasse like this.

JASON CLARE: Well this was a particularly complex matter because it involved an Australian ship dealing with Indonesian waters, it was the Indonesian search and rescue area rather than Indonesian waters and so it was a particularly complex matter but dealt with according to international law and I think it got the right result. It means the boat will be in harbour in Indonesia and it will be processed by the international agencies that are in Indonesia.

KG: Scott what do you make of that? At the end of the day these asylum seekers will be processed in Indonesia. Does the Coalition welcome this result?

SCOTT MORRISON: This arrangement is not a solution. This is one boat, there’s been 42 that have arrived and this does not present an Indonesian solution as some might try to describe it. It’s not a solution at all, it is one arrangement done with one deal. What we are seeking the government to do is to send messages that send signals to people smugglers that there will be nobody coming. Under us, as everyone knows, we got it down to zero arrivals and at the end of the day that’s what people are looking for. They are looking for the government to stop sending mixed messages on this. We have today the government literally divided on themselves. I’m not surprised Kevin Rudd is struggling with the language over this because I don’t think he has the full support of his own party to do the things that we know are necessary to do, the sort of things we did in government to stop the flow. Now it’s the government’s turn, it’s the government’s turn now to pursue their policy, they need to send the signals and Kevin Rudd is not really measuring up.

KG: Jason it did seem the Indonesians were reluctant to accede to the request. Reports in newspapers this morning, the early editions, were that the Indonesians were stalling, were holding out on this, that they didn’t want to be burdened by Australia.

JC: I think this one was a particularly complex matter because it wasn’t in Indonesian waters but it was in their safety and rescue area and an Australian ship was involved but the point that needs to be made is pretty clear, there is a boat in Australian waters it is processed by Australia under our international obligations. If there is a boat in Indonesian waters it is processed by the Indonesians under their international obligations. It’s a regional problem and it needs to be dealt with by the region.

KG: Sure, sure and it seems Jason, Scott I want to get your thoughts on this in a moment, but Andrew Probyn and Nick Butterly in the West Australian newspaper today are reporting that incentive payments could be paid on a per person basis or as a bounty on every boat intercepted as part of a multi-million dollar compensation package to Indonesia. What would you make of that? Is that corporatising something that should be based on humanity?

JC: No it’s not. I can’t speculate on that, I’m not privy to those discussions but the point to make is that the Howard Government and this government both agree that you need to work co-operatively with Indonesia in order to meet the challenge that we’ve got in front of us. We’ve given something like $44 million to Indonesia to help with their border security alert system. We’ve got Australian Federal Police that are on the ground in the region working there as well as that money also going to help with intelligence sharing and intelligence information. It’s already borne fruit. You’ve got something like 48 people smugglers that have been charged in the last 12 months because of co-operation between the two governments and you’ve got something like 80 boats that have been intercepted before they take to sea. That’s the smart approach, that’s the approach the Howard Government took and this government takes as well that you work together.

KG: Scott what do you make of this report that the government will pay millions to Indonesia to intercept the boats and pay them on a per boat or per person capacity? This would be, as the West Australian is reporting, echoing the Pacific solution.

SM: Well the issue for Indonesia is Indonesia has not proven enthusiastic about these things in the past. They did have a solution like this some 20 or 30 years ago and they weren’t very happy with the outcome of that when these sorts of things were done. The Indonesians I think will be making a very simple point to Australia and that is why are we having to solve your problem. You’re the ones who have changed your policy, you’re the ones who have brought these pull factors into the region and under the previous government we didn’t have those problems. The boats went down to an average of three per year, it’s now 42 since August last year and so the Indonesians I think have a pretty reasonable case to make to Australia, you sort out your own shop, don’t become the lastminute.com for people smugglers in Australia, don’t do that with your policies, you guys sort your policies out in Australia and then Indonesia won’t be having to solve our problems for us.

KG: The government has been making the point Scott and it’s a fair point that after the temporary protections visas were introduced there was a surge in asylum seekers so is your argument not diminished by that?

SM: No what we had was a complete framework of measures and what the government has done is fiddle with the thermostat on border control, they’ve done that deliberately, knowingly and did it to talk to a particular section of their support base. Now they’ve done that, they have to accept the consequences of those decisions. They’ve dismantled the framework and we’ve got the result we’ve got. Forty two boats from August and it all happened when they dismantled the scheme. That’s called a pull factor.

KG: Should these people be described as asylum seekers or illegal immigrants? Michael Danby, your colleague, says that he supports the balanced rhetoric of Brendan O’Connor, Chris Evans, he’s had a whack at the Prime Minister, it’s a rare bit of criticism to be honest from Labor ranks since you’ve won. What are your thoughts? Should they be described as illegal immigrants?

JC: First point to make is that it is the policy that’s important here and the government has got the policy right. It’s one thing to have a debate about nomenclature or terminology but what’s important is the policy, whether it’s Michael Danby or anyone else in the party or some of the other commentators in the public recently, they all say the same thing, that the government’s policy is right. Can I just pick up a point that Scott made a minute ago, he says they got them down to zero, well if they thought it was going to stay at zero why did they build a $400 million facility at Christmas Island? Because they know push factors are at play. Let me take one very important point that hasn’t been made in this debate already…

SM: You guys said it was a white elephant by the way.

JC: Just give me a minute, just let me make this point and that is that in the last few months you’ve seen the end of a civil war in Sri Lanka which is largely responsible for a lot of Sri Lankans moving, seeking refuge somewhere else. The same thing Kieran happened in 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War when Saigon fell. That’s when the boats started to come seeking refuge in places like Australia. Now no-one blamed the Fraser Government for that and no one should be blaming the government for this. There are push factors at play that are causing a lot of people to flee their home or go to refugee camps in seek of refuge.

KG: So they’re asylum seekers, they’re not illegal immigrants?

JC: Well…

KG: If they are leaving a war.

JC: …When people seek asylum and then via the UNHCR or via the normal processes they are determined to be either refugees or people that are illegally there and they are returned home.

SM: There’s a problem with the government’s argument Kieran. The number of people who have applied for asylum in the first 8 months of this year globally, and particularly for industrialised countries is less than it was last year. The number of people defined as refugees in the last two years has fallen from about 9.8 million down to about 9.1 million so I just don’t think the government’s argument about the push factors, they cannot spin these boats away, they are coming and we’re looking for action.

JC: Scott is referring to global numbers but he’s not saying what is happening in our region. An 85% increase in Afghanistan…

SM: Well what is happening in our region is pull factors.

JC: …A massive increase in Sri Lanka and there’s been the end of a civil war and I think anyone watching this program would know that exactly the same thing happened at the end of the Vietnam War.

KG: So if that’s your argument why is Michael Danby, why is he the only one out there making this point about the use of language? I mean everyone talks about sending messages, the rhetoric and so on.

JC: Well I think there’s one thing to have a debate about terminology or nomenclature, what’s important is what the government will do.

KG: What are your thoughts?

JC: Well I think the Prime Minister was making the point that if someone is seeking asylum or refuge and they are not a refugee then by that point they are illegal and they’re sent home.

KG: Should he rein in the language a bit though?

JC: Well I think what we need to focus on here is the policy. Can I make one more important point here? There is a blustering subterranean debate going on in the Liberal Party at the moment about what to do. They have a fight going on about temporary protection visas…

SM: I’m sorry Jason, I’m sorry Jason.

JC: All you are going to hear from my mate today is rhetoric.

SM: This division is in your ranks on this one mate. You guys are conflicted and divided and that is why Kev is running hot and cold on the issue.

JC: Whether it’s the ETS or whether it’s this, the Liberal Party are divided on this so you are only going to hear rhetoric from Scott and the Liberal Party this week.

SM: Sorry Jason, no deal on that one.

JC: Because whilst they criticize what the government is doing, they won’t reverse the actions the government has taken because they don’t know what to do on Temporary Protection Visas.

SM: No you are the government, you’re the government.

JC: See this is the answer.

SM: That’s what Nicola Roxon actually said when we were the government. When we took action and when you guys were in Opposition your view was that one boat arrival was a failure of policy. When Nicola Roxon was asked it when she had responsibility she said, ‘no you have to talk to the government’ because the people smugglers aren’t looking to get messages from the Opposition, they’re looking to get messages from you and Kevin Rudd and Kevin is running hot and cold all over this issue.

KG: I want to finish on one other issue. Peter Dutton has to run in Dickson now. It is notionally Labor. Should he have stayed there in the first place like Julie Bishop said he should?

SM: Well there’s a lot of water under the bridge on this issue and Peter has a very, very strong track record in that seat of Dickson and they have a choice between someone with a track record of delivering performance in Dickson and another union official from the Labor Party. So it will be up to the voters of Dickson.

KG: It’s a tough ask though isn’t it? It would be one of the bigger comebacks.

SM: Peter is an outstanding performer, I think he is a great fellow and I think he has delivered much for the people of Dickson and that holds water. People’s records hold water and I think that’s what a lot of the debate we’re having this morning is about. What you’ve done, what you’ve achieved, what your form is matters and that’s what Peter has.

JC: I think Peter Dutton is in a lot of trouble here. He’s effectively said to the people of Dickson I want a divorce, I’ve found someone down the road with a more attractive margin and he’s gone down there, the person with the more attractive margin, and now he’s been rejected. Now he’s got to come back with his tail between his legs and say sorry I didn’t really mean it, I still love you, and it is up to the people of Dickson whether they believe it. I think they will show the same loyalty to Dutton as he showed to them.

SM: Well he’s set a high bar in terms of his performance in that seat and I think that’s, at the end of the day, what people will judge him on.

KG: We’ve just a couple of minutes to go, I just want to get your thoughts on the way the ETS negotiations have started. Lots of praise, mutual admiration almost.

SM: Yes they do seem to be quite friendly don’t they.

JC: Well to the credit of the Liberal Party they’ve finally come up with a position, they were divided on it, but they’ve eventually come up with a position. We can have a sensible and mature debate about the ETS now because the Liberal Party has decided where they stand. We might be able to do that about asylum seekers and this issue if the Liberal Party come up with a position but their division means all they want to do is spout rhetoric instead of telling us where they stand on temporary protection visas and the return of the Pacific solution.

SM: Well let’s talk about the ETS. For months and months and months it had been Malcolm’s position we would negotiate, we would bring forward amendments, we are doing that now, Malcolm’s been true to his word. I’m a little disappointed in question time this week the government has sought to blow this issue up. I mean, we are not asking questions on the ETS this week, what we’re doing is asking..

JC: Your first question on Tuesday was about the ETS.

SM: The negotiations hadn’t started at that point. The negotiations are now underway, we’ve kept very quiet on the issue because we’ve got good faith negotiations and I’d implore the government to negotiate those in good faith. I don’t expect to hear in question time the government ranting about deadlines and timetables and bullying and blustering, I expect them to commit to the good faith negotiations. Penny Wong appears to do that, I think the Treasurer and others who were trying to make some cheap points yesterday should pull back and keep the faith.

KG: Leave it to the people with the sharp IQ, Penny Wong.