PM: Good afternoon.
Earlier today, the Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, signed an agreement with his Malaysian counterpart, the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Hishammuddin. This is the agreement about transferring asylum seekers to Malaysia that has been under negotiations since it was first announced by me on 7 May.
This is a ground-breaking agreement which is designed to smash the business model of people smugglers. People smugglers prey on the desperation of others, and what they are seeking to sell is the hope of having their claim processed in Australia. This will smash that people smugglers' business model.
From today, my message to anyone who is considering paying money to a people smuggler and risking their life at sea, and perhaps the lives of their family members as well, is do not do that in the false hope that you will be able to have your claim processed in Australia.
Under this agreement, up to 800 asylum seekers will be transferred to Malaysia.
Now I am happy to work my way through the details of this agreement, but I do, before going there, want to make the following point. On 7 of May we announced that we would seek to enter such an innovative approach with Malaysia. We announced that that would be auspiced under a regional framework; the framework that was agreed in Bali. At the same time, the Government made it clear that there were discussions in train with PNG.
Since that time, 7 May, people who have arrived unauthorised have been held pending removal to a third country. The situation, of course, is that the Malaysia agreement, entered into today, has a date of effect following the signing of the agreement, and whilst discussions continue with PNG, this has been a difficult time in the life of that nation, with Sir Michael, a giant of that nation, unwell, so in these circumstances the around 500 persons who have arrived since 7 May will have their claims processed in Australia.
In relation to the Malaysian agreement there has been considerable speculation and discussion on the questions of Human Rights; I understand that. This is a tough measure, but we have worked hard to ensure that there are appropriate protections in place on human rights. Asylum seekers who are transferred to Malaysia under this agreement will have their claims processed by UNHCR - the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
It should be noted that there are around 90,000 persons in Malaysia who are seeking to have claims processed and to be treated as genuine refugees. The persons transferred to Malaysia will not get preferential processing. They will take their place alongside these 90,000 asylum seekers and they will wait their turn.
Malaysia has affirmed that it will not send any of the persons transferred back to persecution in their countries of origin. That is, if people are genuine refugees, and have a fear of persecution, then they will not be sent back to their country of origin, in breach of the Refugee Convention. This is, in fact, the central tenant of the Refugee Convention.
Those sent to Malaysia will be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with human rights. That's a clear commitment of the Malaysian Government as part of this agreement.
What that means in practice is that the persons transferred will be there with the permission and agreement of the Malaysian Government. That means they will not be subject to any of the penalties imposed on illegal entrance; this means they will not be arrested and they will not be caned.
They will be allowed to live in the community after a short period for health and identity checks. They will be allowed ongoing access to employment opportunities and will have access to appropriate medical care. Children will have access to education.
To ensure the welfare of the asylum seekers transferred, there will be an oversight committee which will include representatives of UNHCR and also of the International Organisation for Migration, IOM, as well as officials from both countries, from Australia and from Malaysia.
I want to make it clear that we will assess the circumstances o individuals prior to transfer, but there will be no blanket exemptions. UNHCR, along with IOM, have been consulted strongly during the course of this agreement's negotiations, and they will have a strong role to play in its implementation.
Then, of course, as part of this agreement, Australia will take 4,000 genuine refugees from Malaysia. As I said, there are around 90,000 asylum seekers in Malaysia as we stand here today. The 4,000 persons will be taken at the rate of 1,000 a year. They will be genuine refugees, and they will be people who have been registered in Malaysia by today. That is, the 800 people returned will not be part of the 4,000, and people who arrive in Malaysia seeking asylum after today cannot be amongst those people eligible to take a place in the 4,000. They need to have been in Malaysia and registered by the time of today.
We will continue to work closely with the UNHCR, obviously, on the selection of the 4,000 people to come to our country.
I believe that this agreement meets our nation's needs in two ways. We obviously want to work in our region in a cooperative way, to ensure that we don't see people get on boats and risk their lives trying to come to Australia. So, this agreement will better secure our borders and will also mean that we are sending the strongest possible message: do not risk your life at sea; do not pay a people smuggler; do not get on a boat.
Ours is also a nation with a strong history of offering resettlement opportunities for refugees from around the world, and a number of our leading Australians got here as refugees. This agreement offers 4,000 more people, who are genuine refugees, the opportunity to come to this country and make a new life within our nation.
I've always said that the appropriate way to tackle people smuggling, a regional problem, was through a regional solution, and the Malaysia agreement is taking place under the framework which was agreed in Bali. It's a true burden-sharing agreement, in line with the principles of collective responsibility and cooperation that underpin the regional cooperation framework.
Can I conclude by saying there are a number of people that I would like to thank for their work in bringing this agreement to conclusion.
Of course, I would like to thank Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia and his Minister, Minister Hishammuddin, for agreeing to enter these negotiations with Australia, and seeing these negotiations through to today's agreement.
I would also like to offer a very big thanks to the Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen. He has worked hard on this innovative agreement, on this breakthrough agreement, and I'd like to convey my thanks to him. I'd also like to thank Ministers Rudd and O'Connor, who have worked to support the conclusion of this agreement.
I'm very happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: Some of the people who have arrived since, in principle, the announcement on May 7, have claimed that they were not told by the (inaudible) when they got on a boat. How are you going to prevent that happening? Is the Government going to step up its efforts, information campaigns in Indonesia and other places, to spread the message around this deal?
PM: Yes, we will. There will be a communications effort in countries that people set sail from, and countries in the pipeline to where people set sail from. Our practical experience is that the people smuggling pipeline is in fact very sensitive to changes, and that the fact that this, something as big as this, has been done will flow up the people smuggling pipeline.
But we won't be relying on that just happening organically - we will be resourcing a campaign to make sure the message gets through.
JOURNALIST: The nature and cost of that campaign, do you have those details?
PM: The nature of that campaign is like campaigns run in the past, so it does, obviously, involve information in languages, in a number of languages that people need. In terms of costs of it, it's being run by the Department of Immigration. I can get you those figures.
JOURNALIST: In terms of first people subjected to this project, there was a boat intercepted on Saturday with 40-odd people. They are yet to get to, or be taken to, Christmas Island. Are they going to be the ones who will be first sent to Malaysia?
PM: No, they won't. The agreement signed today becomes operational tomorrow, so it becomes operational, if you like, at one second past midnight tonight.
JOURNALIST: In your press release you talk about people being on Christmas Island, those who are actually on Christmas Island. These guys aren't there on Christmas Island. Is it to do with boats intercepted after midnight tonight?
PM: Yes, so those interceptions which have already occurred, and people are in transit to Christmas Island, those people will be processed here in Australia. This is for interceptions that occur after midnight tonight, or occur tomorrow, or in the days following.
JOURNALIST: Given that the flow of boats has slowed up a little bit, how long do you think it will take to fill these 800 places?
PM: Well, the aim here is to smash the people smugglers' business model, so the message gets through that people shouldn't get on a boat - that is what we are seeking to achieve.
You're right, the very fact that this was in prospect appears to have made a difference to the number of people getting on boats. The figures available to me, in terms of comparing this period last year with this period this year, is it's the difference between 1,700 and 500, but we from today are sending the strongest possible message we can to people who might be thinking of paying a people smuggler and risking their life on a boat - they shouldn't do that in the false hope that they'll have their claim processed here.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, up until the weekend, as soon as the weekend, your Government was saying the people who arrive in between the time that you announced the deal and today would be sent to a third country. I heard what you said Sir Michael Somare, but are you seriously saying that just today, the decision was made that these people would not be going to a third country, that you only realised that today? If it's been apparent for a long time there's no deal with PNG, because of Michael's condition, why did you keep telling people that they would be going to a third country when the probably wouldn't be?
PM: Well, I've worked through, actually in very recent days, in the last couple of days, with the Minister for Immigration, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and with appropriate departmental officials and advice about what we should do for the around 500 asylum seekers who were on Christmas Island now. So, that decision has been made in the last couple of days.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's the arrangement for people who arrive after today, who don't want to get on a plane to go to Malaysia, and once they're on the plane, don't want to get off the plane? Can you explain exactly what will happen?
PM: Certainly, we would be absolutely looking to people to abide with instructions that are given to them; instructions obviously to board a plane, and then to disembark a plane. I would certainly hope that that's the case. If it's not the case then appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that they deliver on this agreement.
JOURNALIST: What are they?
PM: Well, obviously they include making an appropriate use of moving people around if they need to moved around other than by their own state.
JOURNALIST: So will it be Federal Police, will it be Australian authorities or Malaysian Police that would be dragging people on and off planes, is that what-
PM: -Australia is responsible for the transfer.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did you draft a proposal early last year for a bipartisan solution on climate change that was not a CPRS or a carbon tax? And if you did, does that show that you're not, you don't seriously believe in the policy you're now pursuing?
PM: Well, thank you for asking that question, and, of course, I don't talk about Cabinet decisions, but I'm certainly happy to talk about my beliefs, and in doing so I'll make it very clear that those matters reported today have no veracity or truthfulness to them.
I've always believed that climate change is real. I've always believed that carbon pollution caused by human activity needs to be cut. I've always believed that in order to do that, the most efficient way of doing it, the best way of doing it, was by putting a price on carbon, and I have never believed that this nation could reach its -5 per cent emissions reduction target other than by putting a price on carbon.
So, let me be very clear about that - I've always believed that to reach our -5 per cent we needed to put a price on carbon. Any report or statement to the contrary is simply untrue.
JOURNALIST: Did you draft a proposal called ‘the bipartisan solution'?
PM: Well, I'm not going to play a game of fishing. You've put a position to me and I've just answered it for you.
Now, on the question of bipartisanship, let me say this and say it very clearly, and I've had the opportunity to say it to a number of Australians as I've moved around the country in the last couple of weeks: of course, it would be better if this big economic reform was bipartisan. Of course it would.
I offered Tony Abbott a seat on the NPCCC. Of course it would be a good thing if, like the big reforms of the past, floating the dollar, and tariff reductions, this was a bipartisan reform, but it's not - it's a bipartisan target but there's no bipartisanship about reaching that target in the cheapest and most effective way possible.
That's why I'm standing here for a price on carbon which would cut carbon pollution, enable us to cut taxes and enable us to increase pensions, and Tony Abbott, if you look at the Treasury modelling, is supporting a proposition which means he will have to require Australian families to stump up $1,300 additional in tax each year, so that's the difference.
The point I've been making as I've travelled around the country in the past few weeks is, in the absence of bipartisanship, this is a bit more like Labor's fight to have Medicare in this country; it's a bit more like Labor's fight to have universal superannuation in this country, both of which were bitterly opposed by the Liberal opposition.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) before the election Labor had a policy of deferring a carbon price until 2013 or later, so what you just said then, does that mean you knew at that time you probably weren't going to meet your target under that policy (inaudible)
PM: Well, it depends. Your question is making an assumption about when it would have started. Of course, the sooner you start the easier the start up of the scheme can be. You could start later, this is the point you're putting, but the point I've made consistently as I've travelled around the country is with bipartisanship around the -5 per cent target - I note Tony Abbott had a collywobble about that last week as part of attempting to say different things to different audiences depending on what he thinks they want to hear, so sometimes he says he doesn't agree with the 5 per cent target, sometimes he says he does, my understanding is that today he does agree with the bipartisan 5 per cent target - so the point I've been making as I've travelled around the country is if there is bipartisanship around the target, then the nation's asking itself two questions in all of this debate: when do we start, and how do you get there? Well, I'm for starting soon and doing it in the cheapest way possible.
JOURNALIST: Can I just take you back to the Malaysia deal and ask you the same question I asked you at the press gallery boxes two and a bit months ago about who would be - you, and this about (inaudible) exemptions-
PM: -I'm trying to remember every question you've asked me in the last few months.
JOURNALIST: I'm sure you would, Prime Minister, but it's to do with the exemptions. You say there'd be no blanket exemptions, but what of children, the infirmed, the elderly, pregnant women and the like. I mean, surely you cannot send these people on a plane in the expectation there may be trouble with people who don't want to get off, on the plane, let alone get off it?
PM: Well, let me say it again - there's no blanket exemptions. There will be an assessment process here and we have, through this agreement, worked to have special levels of support available for people who might have particular issues in Malaysia, but there are no blanket exemptions.
JOURNALISTS: (inaudible)
PM: I'll go to Michelle at the back and then come forward.
JOURNALIST: Going back to carbon, the Queensland Premier and sections of business including the AIG group have called for some changes to the package and negotiations. Various Ministers seem to be saying various things on this. Could you just clarify whether you are willing to negotiate aspects of the package in response to those groups?
PM: Well, the package announced will be the package delivered. Of course, as we put out legislation people will be free to make points about details in the legislation, so Michelle what I've got in mind is exactly the same process I went through when I got rid of Work Choices and enacted the Fair Work Act, which is I came into Government with a comprehensive policy. We delivered on that comprehensive policy, so that wasn't open for negotiation, but of course, as we did the fine details of the legislation, people said, well that clause would be better drafted this way-
JOURNALIST: -And Anna Bligh could get something?
PM: I've just said to you, Michelle, the package we announced is the package we will deliver. On the question you're obviously raising about state electricity generation, let me say this: Queensland is a state with a lot to gain from a clean energy future. Those gains can start with the asset appreciation that their clean energy generation assets will experience as a results of our package to put a price on carbon pollution. I don't hear the Queensland Government volunteering to send that asset appreciation back to the Federal Government and nor would I expect them to.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, back on the Malaysian solution, in the deal it says transferees will be given access to health and education. How would that work? For example, will minors be going into the public school system in Malaysia?
PM: All of this of course will be overseen by the advisory committee that I've spoken of. Children will have access to education that can occur through community schools and in part through the IOM.
JOURNALISTS: (inaudible)
PM: We'll just go here.
JOURNALIST: Just on the Malaysia deal, why did the Immigration Department publish information on its website saying that the deal would be backdated to the date of the announcement and it would be the 800 people after then who would be affected, when that doesn't ever seem to have been part of the deal? And also just on the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, Bob Brown and Nick McKim last night immediately rejected it, saying that it didn't ensure conservation outcomes, so doesn't that mean your deal, that deal, is dead in the water before it begins?
PM: Always the apocryphal statements at press conferences.
On the first, you'll have to talk to the Department of Immigration about that. Obviously when we announced on 7 May we needed to work through with Malaysia on the details of the agreement, we're in discussions with PNG, we now need to make decisions about the people who have arrived since, and those decisions have been made in the last couple of days and I'm announcing them now to process in Australia. So, on information on the Department website, please direct that to the Department.
On the major agreement that I announced yesterday in Tasmania with the Tasmanian Premier, this is a process that has been fundamentally about the stakeholders. That is, the environment group and the industry groups, the employers, the contractors, the union, that over decades, longer than some reporters in this room have been alive, over decades, have been in disputation about the future of Tasmanian forests.
What this agreement is about is recognising, as those stakeholders did, that conditions in the market had changed, that people were going to lose their jobs, that if we did nothing this would be a very difficult time for people who get their living from forestry and for forestry communities.
So what those stakeholders did in great good faith given the history, is they sat round a table and said can we work this out? Can we work it out so that the workers and the contractors who are going to lose what they've done as their livelihoods get a better deal? Can we work it out so there's a sustainable future for forestry? Can we work it out so literally hundreds of thousands more hectares of forests are protected? And they came up with a statement of principles.
It didn't answer all questions, so it has required some leadership from me and from the Premier of Tasmania to answer those questions and we did in the agreement that we signed and released yesterday.
So, others have got their views, Senator Brown's got his view, Mr McKim may have his view, but we will implement the heads of agreement that was signed yesterday and it will be worked up into a comprehensive agreement in 14 days' time.
In terms of the influence of, say, Mr McKim on this matter, he's in the Tasmanian Parliament. As I understand it there will be two propositions go to the Tasmanian Parliament. There will be a regulation change that reduces the amount of quota for forestry from a minimum of 300,000 hectares to a minimum of 155,000 - sorry that's not hectares, that's cubic metres of wood product, so 300,000 versus 155,000.
When that regulation is made by the Premier, Mr McKim and his Greens Party will have one choice - do they seek to disallow and keep it at 300,000 or do they not disallow it and have it at 155,000? Seem to me very curious indeed if they voted for the greater amount.
And then legislation will be presented in the first six months of next year to move forests into better levels of protection. Would seem to me, once again, a very strange result indeed if Mr McKim and his political party voted against that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just on the Malaysian solution, when do you expect the first of the 4,000 to arrive in Australia? And do you need any legislation to put this Malaysian thing in place?
PM: No, we don't, and the 4,000, it's 1,000 a year. The years are financial years, so that's 1,000 in this financial year.
We'll do what we do when we take refugees from around the world, which is work with UNHCR and obviously identify people to come and go through the appropriate processes to bring them here and to support them in settlement here.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Mr O'Connor announced the other day an examination of the privacy issues from the Australian Law Reform Commission report, and Senator Conroy's got another inquiry going and the Greens have asked you to think about a further inquiry. Can you bring us up to date on whether you have spoken to Senator Brown about that and whether or not you've made a decision? What do you think some of the other issues related to privacy or media that the Greens have raised that might not be part of the existing inquiries?
PM: I haven't spoken to Senator Brown about it and what I said at the time is I imagine when the Parliament resumes people may want to raise such a proposition and I'll consider it at that time.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what's your understanding of the costs of administering the Malaysian deal? Fourth line of the deal outlines that Australia's got responsibility for the health, welfare, the refugee determination, any related appeals and deportations from Malaysia of people who are transferred there, so do you have an idea of what the cost of that may be? And secondly, is there a review mechanism or will you review the deal should any asylum seeker transferred to Malaysia be subject to Ministerial reviews?
PM: Well, we have the advisory committee that will be working to oversee what occurs under the agreement.
The costs are, you would see that there's been discussion about a figure of $300 million. It's important to be clear what components of that are for resettling 4,000 more refugees in this country as opposed to work that needs to happen for the transfer agreement.
The figure for the work that needs to happen for the transfer agreement is $76 million. As a nation, we do bring refugees to this country, we've got a proud history of doing it. It does take some resources and when you're going to take 4,000 more then of course that takes some resources too and we've budgeted those resources.
I would say this come against a backdrop where people might recall that Tony Abbott, in his discussions with Mr Wilkie following the election, was prepared to double this nation's quota of refugees at a cost of $3 billion.
JOURNALIST: Just on clarifying that question though, I think Joe asked is there anything within the agreement that can be activated that if someone's human rights are infringed and your answer I think was that in part it did, there was a committee. What power does that committee have and is there in fact a provision that can actually be triggered so that if there is an invasion of human rights, something happens?
PM: Well, have a look at the agreement yourself, but can I say I'm not sharing the assumption that both nations to this agreement won't honour the obligations that they freely entered into.
JOURNALIST: The retailer Premier Investments says it's going to close 50 stores today, some of them Just Jeans stores, those sort of things, because of disappointing sales. Is there anything you can offer those stores or those workers?
PM: Well on the situation of workers, obviously it's dreadful when anybody loses their job and one of the things that we've sought to do through getting rid of Work Choices and making sure that there's a fair work system is to provide people with some protections when they do face redundancies.
So, you know, it's a really tough thing for people when they get that awful news that they're being made redundant and our work place relations laws support people in getting access to some entitlements and rights at that time. In addition of course there's a Government program to assist people if the employer is in circumstances where it cannot pay those appropriate entitlements.
More generally on the question of economic management and the situation in our economy today, we know that the underlying fundamentals of our economy are very strong indeed.
People may have seen for example some reports in today's newspapers about the resources sector and it thinking about how much skilled labour it's going to need in the future, how many people it's going to need in the future because of the growth that it's undergoing - more than $400 billion worth of projects in the pipeline - but we also know a feature of our economy today is that we've got a high Australian dollar which is likely to be sustained at high rates. That does put pressures on other parts of the economy. Consequently, that gives rise to what we call the patchwork effects around the economy and we do know that there are sections of retailing particularly that are feeling the brunt from high Aussie dollar, cautious consumers and the like. So the best thing we can do as a Government, apart from getting the workplace relations laws right - and we have - is to continue to provide strong economic leadership and management of our economy, including during this remarkable time of transition.
Thank you very much.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister on the Tasmania deal again-
PM: -Yes.
JOURNALIST: Do you need the Federal Greens support to fund it, to legislate it and fund it, and if so how can you possibly expect to get that support, and also why did you agree to a deal that sees taxpayers funds go to Gunns Ltd to compensate it for a commercial decision that they made to withdraw from native forests?
PM: Well, as I made clear in Tasmania yesterday the Tasmanian Government has a set of discussions to have with Gunns. Those discussions won't involve the Federal Government.
Yes, I've got a very different view from Bob Brown about this issue. My view is this is an important step forward in what has been a very-long running and vexed debate. As a Labor person I come to this with a view about supporting working people, particularly working people who haven't done anything wrong but a facing a very difficult situation, and of course I come to it with a view about wanting to have the best environment for the future, so I'm for practical, real-world change and that's what this agreement is about. It does not require federal legislation for us to deal with it.
JOURNALIST: It will require Greens support though to get, to pass it through, so how will get -
PM: -Well it doesn't require Federal legislation to deal with it.
JOURNALIST: In Tasmania it will though?
PM: And I've just made those comments I've made about the situation in the Tasmanian Parliament, so you probably need to now ask Mr McKim whether he's intending to vote against a reduction in wood quotas or whether he's intending to vote against reserving more area as protection forest area. They're questions you should ask him.
Thanks very much.