PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen, I called this news conference to announce a number of changes the government has decided upon in relation to the issue of immigration detention. Let me start by saying that the framework of the Government's existing policy remains completely intact. Mandatory detention will remain, we will maintain our strong position on border protection, that is the excision of islands, the maintenance of offshore processing and in the unlikely event of it being needed in the future, the policy of turning boats around. But as I said in the Parliament following the debate in the party room, although there's strong support for retention of the existing policy, we do take opportunities to see that the policy is administered more fairly and flexibly and above all in a more timely manner. Its fair to say that the more I have delved into this issue the greatest areas of complaint really, excuse me, arise around the issue of time and therefore quite a number of the announcements that I am about to make relate to the issue of the time it takes to deal with matters and I will be releasing some documents which will detail the changes that the Government is making so the prints and indeed all of you will have plenty to work with in the short time that I regret is available. Now the Migration Act is going to be amended to provide an additional non-compellable power for the Minister to specify alternative arrangements for a person's detention. Now the purpose of this in shorthand is to enable the detention of families with children to take place in the community where conditions would be set to meet their individual circumstances. I stress that their legal status would still be that of detention, they won't be given visas but, except if they meet entitlements for visas under other circumstances.
We are also going to amend the Migration Act to provide an additional non-compellable power for the Minister to grant a visa to any person in detention. The purpose of that is to give more flexibility and discretion to the Minister but I stress both of those powers will be non-compellable, in other words, they will be exercised at the discretion of the Minister but the objective in relation to the children is clearly as I have explained and we'll be indicating that we would not want children to be detained except as a last resort. Now in relation to the issue of time, we have decided on a number of changes that we are going to require that the primary decision be taken within three months and that the Refugee Review Tribunal make its decision within another three months. If that doesn't happen, there's no automatic consequence other than the requirement that regular reports be tabled in Parliament, detailing cases that haven't met those time limits. Because in a number of cases, not meeting those time limits is not the fault of the Department but can be the fault of other people. Now importantly, also in relation to time, we've decided that where a person has been in detention for two years or more, there will be thereafter an automatic requirement that every six months, a report on that person's detention, must be furnished by the Department to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will assess that report and will provide an assessment to the Minister who must then table the assessment in Parliament. The Ombudsman may in his assessment recommend anything he likes, he could recommend release, he could recommend continued detention, or indeed any other recommendation but it will be a recommendation only and its expressly to be the case that the recommendation of the Ombudsman will in no way bind the Minister. So in other words we are not substituting the Ombudsman's decision for the Minister's decision.
Also on timing, the Department will complete all primary assessments of applications for permanent protection visas from the existing case load of temporary protection visa holders. Now this is really that block of about 10,500 which are a carry over from the surge in 2001. They've gone through about 5,500 of those or more and there's still another 4000 to go. Having discussed that with the Department, they believe that they can complete that by the 31st October and to expedite this process, decisions in these remaining cases are going to be taken what's called in the jargon, on the papers, in other words they will look at the documentation and if there is a, unless there is a disposition to reject it then it won't be necessary for a further interview to take place but the same criteria in determining it is still going to apply. Now implementation of these changes to the Immigration Act and to related procedures is going to be overseen by an inter departmental committee and that's going to be chaired by the secretary of my department. Now as you are aware these changes, one of which has already been announced and which really arise very much out of the Party room debate. They have involved some extensive discussions with a number of my colleagues and the Member for Kooyong has informed me that he will be withdrawing his private member's bills of which he's given notice. I will be releasing immediately after this news conference, not only a covering statement from me which outlines in summary, the changes that we have agreed to, but also a more detailed statement of them. I think they represent a very sensible advance on the present arrangements. They don't in any way undermine the existing policy and there is no substitution of judicial review or independent officer review of Government decisions. There is the introduction of a number of long overdue, I believe, changes to accelerate the process and to meet a very strongly recurring criticism in the party room and that is that everything was taking too long. The message I got from the party room and this is faithfully reflected in this announcement is that people were very strongly in support of the current policy, they do not want any weakening of mandatory detention, they do not want any weakening of our border protection policies. But they do want it to be administered more flexibly. And these represent significant improvements in the area of flexibility. They want a far greater emphasis on timeliness and I think of all the changes I've outlined, the ones that are really the most important, apart from those relating to children relate to the issue of time. Because they place time limits, although they are time limits that don't have automatic consequences if they're not met, but once you put time limits it adds an additional accelerant, if I can put it that way, to the process. I think the Ombudsman review proposal in relation to people who have been detained for longer than two years, which I repeat does not involve the Ombudsman's conclusion replacing the Ministers decision in any way. I think that's a valuable accelerant. Well, it's a valuable addition to transparency. And so I regard these changes as certainly meeting the wishes of my colleagues in the party room. All of them. I mean there are a range of views in my party on this issue as you know. There will be a number of my colleagues who don't think these changes have gone far enough, but I think the overwhelming majority of my colleagues will see these changes as reflecting the collective view of the party room. I do want to thank four of my colleagues in particular with whom I've had lengthy discussions this week, intensive discussions. I respect that process. We are a party with a range of views on these issues and this has been an opportunity for the party to work through a difficult issue, reach a conclusion, which sees honour on different sides and that's important. We don't operate on the principle of a winner takes all in terms of majority views. But we do operate on a view that the overwhelming collective view of the party room should be respected and the overwhelming collective view of the party room is respected in these decisions. And I have no doubt they will be warmly endorsed by my colleagues.
JOURNALIST:
If they're long overdue Mr Howard, why weren't they done before?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's a fair question. I thought you would ask it, but I suppose with the benefit of hindsight, we have to confess that that's one of the many failings of this government of which you've written frequently. I'll withdraw that last bit Michelle that's fine.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard does it do away with indefinite detention?
PRIME MINISTER:
Ah no. Well it doesn't by law do away with indefinite detention and it's very difficult to do away by law with indefinite detention because sometimes people can be indefinitely detained through no fault of the Governments. But let me put it this way. There are a lot more powers available. There is a lot more capacity for the Minister to exercise a discretion and I believe that the new transparency through the ombudsman device will be valuable in that respect.
JOURNALIST:
Will it require the allocation of any further resources of (inaudible) Department?
PRIME MINISTER:
If it does they will be allocated.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister how can people be indefinitely detained through no fault of the Government if it's the Government doing the detaining?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if a person arrives here illegally or unauthorised, whichever version you require and does not provide adequate responses to all of the questions that are reasonably asked of a non-citizen then that is not the fault of the Government. That's the point I'm making. I don't want anybody indefinitely detained. But you either have a mandatory detention system or you don't. And what we now have I believe and what we will have even more so after these changes are a mandatory detention system with a softer edge, but nonetheless a mandatory detention system.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister can you give us some insight into the tenure of the talks? I mean was it a log jam? You've met, what, four times last week
PRIME MINISTER:
Look the four colleagues have strong views on it. I invested an enormous amount of time on this. I wanted to see if we could reach a conclusion that respected the views of the party room but also a conclusion that provided some ownership also to my colleagues, with whom I have been in close contact over the past few days and I think we have achieved that. I mean, look this should be no argument. This is, and you can read the documents and make your own views about it, I mean we have clearly changed things in relation to children and that's important. And we have clearly accelerated the times within which people will be required in the Department and elsewhere to deal with matters. And we have provided a mechanism for a transparent exposure of the circumstances surrounding the detention of people for longer than two years. Now I think they are quite important and they're significant pieces of liberalisation.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you've taken an interest in the case of Peter Qasim. Would you like to see him released into the community?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't want to talk about an individual case. I don't think that's fair to the Minister and I don't think this is the time to be dealing with that except to say that I'm sure that the Minister is focussing on a number of individual cases. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how embarrassing would have this been for the Government if the private member's bills had gone ahead? PRIME MINISTER: If what? JOURNALIST: If the private members bills had gone ahead? PRIME MINISTER: Well that's an academic question. JOURNALIST: Well do you expect then to have more of these ginger groups coming forward once you take control of the Senate? PRIME MINISTER:
Oh I think my party and the Coalition will always be a party of lively debate and there will be issues that arise from time to time where people will feel very strongly and you'll go through a process of working through an issue. Part of my job is to not only refect the simple majority view in the party room, but also to understand that in a party which is proudly a broad church, you do have a range of views and you should be willing to sit down and invest the time and work hard to achieve an outcome. And this is a very good outcome for the Liberal Party. I mean we have dealt with an issue and we have dealt with it maturely and openly and we have dealt with it in a way that is respectful to the views of the colleagues who are in a minority, but also in the end the majority view in a sensitive way of the Party Room has prevailed and that is how is should be and I regard this as the mature behaviour of a successful political party.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, did you give Mr Georgiou any undertakings on...
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Did you give Mr Georgiou any undertakings on how broadly you expect your Minister to exercise her newly awarded discretion?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you give somebody a discretion, it's I'm sure going to be exercised in a sensible manner and in a manner that is, I'm sure, not only sensible but also liberal.
JOURNALIST:
How long were today's talks Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think today's talks were, let me see, if you add it all together I think they were about three hours and we had a couple the other night and we had two in the electorate office last Friday, well an hour and a half in the electorate office last Friday and then we had the Lodge on Sunday night. So it's all up about getting close to seven or eight hours. But I don't mind, it's time well spent and we've handled an issue.
JOURNALIST:
But the Minister wasn't included in any of this.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I have kept in regular touch with her.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, some of your critics like to invoke Robert Menzies in this debate and argue that in his speeches and views on social justice that he might have had a different view to your own on the issue of immigration policy. What do you think of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think those sort of comparisons are ludicrous, it's the equivalent of saying that he was less Liberal than I because he was Prime Minister at a time when we still had a White Australia policy. I mean you respond to the circumstances of an age. I mean Menzies is- I have no greater figure of respect in Australian politics than Bob Menzies. I think those sort of comparisons are unfair, I've always thought they were completely unfair - unfair to those of the past and unfair to those of the present. You just can't make those comparisons.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, will the Minister's new found powers or freedom...
PRIME MINISTER:
Discretion.
JOURNALIST:
...discretion extends to her granting people with temporary protection visas permanent residence?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what we're doing with the existing caseload of temporary protection visa holders is continuing with the present policy but we're going to speed it up and that's very important. Now as to how she might exercise her new found discretion that will be a matter for her, I'm not going to start giving her public guidance.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, why have you decided to speed up that process of moving people from temporary to permanent visas? And in future do you imagine that the Government will continue to use temporary visas?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, we will, we're not going to abandon temporary protection visas, that was one of the issues that was discussed and we do not intend to abandon temporary protection visas and the same rules that apply at present will apply in future.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, who's idea was it to introduce the ombudsman into the process?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it was actually mine.
JOURNALIST:
And why have you decided to retain the temporary protection visas in future?
PRIME MINISTER:
Why? Because I think they're justified, I think if somebody is an unauthorised arrival in this country they should be treated differently than somebody who is lawfully here in the first place and applies for refugee status while they are lawfully in this country. I think there is a difference and it's part of the policy to retain Temporary Protection Visas, but to make sure that the process of dealing with the caseload is faster.
Well. Thank you.
[ends]