Labor’s Asylum Seeker Policy

Press Conference - 3 December 2002

CREAN: I indicated when I took over the leadership there were some key issues in the first year to be resolved within the party. One, of course, was party reform. The other was the adoption of our policy in relation to asylum seekers. This was a policy that caused great angst to party membership in the last election. It's one that has continued to be raised in all of the party forums and where we've had specialist party forums to deal with the complexity of the issues. I always recognised that it was going to be a tough area, and that's why I asked Julia Gillard to take on the portfolio and take charge of developing our policy response.

Today we're releasing what the Shadow Cabinet has recommended to Caucus and what the Caucus has commenced debate upon today and will finalise its position at an adjourned meeting of Caucus on Thursday. The meeting today was very constructive. It was very civil. There was no rancour and there was a genuine desire on the part of people to question the detail, to understand that detail better. And whilst I'm not pretending that there aren't differences of opinion in some of the policy areas, they will be issues that will be resolved in the Caucus on Thursday.

I had indicated to the Caucus that I was prepared to allow the additional time for consideration. I think that's appropriate, because there has been exhaustive consultation to date but, as you can see from the document that has been considered by the Shadow Cabinet, it is a lengthy document, even though the policy recommendations are contained within the first 16pages. The analysis document is by way of more detail and there is nothing in that part that is inconsistent with what is contained in the 16-page document. I have agreed to the Caucus having more time to consider it. Today there was a lot of discussion. There will be continuation of discussion of the detail and content in the Caucus committee this afternoon and the Caucus, as I said, will resume again on Thursday.

Let me just go to the detail of what's contained in the policy and then I'll ask Julia to make some further references to it.

The underlying message out of what we're putting forward here is that Labor can better protect our borders whilst at the same time treating asylum seekers decently. I've never shirked from the preparedness to face up to these objectives together. I make the point that I don't see a higher priority than the nation's security and in the current circumstances it's essential that we address that.

Having said that, we also have to face up to the fact that there are circumstances in which asylum seekers come here and in which people seek asylum in this country, and the underpinning objective in terms of this policy is to ensure that they are treated decently, that we do the right thing. And doing the right thing means securing our borders and treating them decently.

In terms of better protecting our borders, you will have seen that last week we announced the policy on the Australian Coastguard. That is an important component of securing Australia's borders. Within this documentation today, we have announced the introduction of a green card to crack down on illegal workers. We also are announcing tougher policy and harsher penalties to smash people-smuggling rings. We are announcing improved security arrangements at our airports. And we are also saying, in relation to this documentation, that asylum seekers who arrive by air are treated in the same way as those who arrive by sea.

Mandatory detention is proposed to continue under these recommendations. It's interesting that in the debate around mandatory detention, the vast majority of people that I've spoken with and that we've consulted with, accept that there has to be some form of detention for the establishment of people's health, security and identity checks. And that's what these proposals recommend detention be retained for.

We will be retaining mandatory detention for those checks, but children will be released from behind the razor wire. We'll be scrapping the ‘Pacific Solution'. We'll be closing Woomera. And we will be ensuring that we process those claims of people seeking asylum – to the best of our ability – within 90days. In talking through with the people involved in this, we believe that 90per cent of claims can be processed within the 90 days. Those with claims of merit and who pose no risks will live in supervised hostel-style accommodation. That, too, is an important change from the Government's current practices.

Temporary Protection Visas will not continue indefinitely as has been the case under this Government. We will also increase funding to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and boost aid to countries that are the source of, or transit countries for, asylum seekers. This is terribly important if we are to drive the agenda in terms of an international solution. In discussions that I have had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the middle of this year, and the discussions that I have had in the UK including with Tony Blair, I know that there is the need for and the capacity to achieve an international framework for all nations to be dealing sensitively and properly with the issue of asylum seekers. And we're also announcing by way of these recommendations that asylum seekers or returned asylum seekers – those whom it's judged can be returned to their countries – are monitored to ensure that they are not being persecuted.

Now I'll ask Julia to comment further about some of the detail in this documentation. My final point by way of opening remarks is to point out that these are the recommendations that have been put forward by the Shadow Cabinet. They are not yet the policy of the Labor Party. That will be a matter for Caucus to determine, and it will finalise that position this coming Thursday. But in the interests of ensuring that the detail of what our proposals involve is presented contextually and comprehensively, I'm releasing this information to you today. If I didn't do it, someone else would. I'm saving you the phone calls. I'm saving you the brown paper envelopes. So this is the documentation that has gone to our parliamentary Caucus early this morning. It's the documentation that members of the Shadow Cabinet have considered over recent days and weeks, and it's the documentation that ultimately that will be determined upon by the Caucus. I'd invite Julia Gillard to also talk to the documentation.

GILLARD: Can I say with this package I think Labor is now firmly in the lead of this debate. Today Minister Ruddock will make a statement responding to us on the question of children in detention. We've campaigned for children to be freed from behind the razor wire since Simon Crean's Australia Day address. We've waited for Minister Ruddock to respond, and he is responding today. We will judge that statement to see whether or not it meets the criteria of a decent policy as spelt out in this document.

Labor's in the lead in this document, too, in an important respect. We're putting forward a unique international idea for moving the global protection system for refugees forward. That unique international idea is that the developed world resource UNHCR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to undertake refugee determination everywhere – countries of first asylum and developed countries. That would be the ultimate deterrent. There is no need to keep moving if you are going to hit the same processing regime. It would be the ultimate equity solution. People in refugee camps in Africa would have the same chance of a resettlement place as a bloke who gets through the Channel Tunnel. We will advocate that idea internationally and we think that it is a key to resolving the world's problems with the current global protection system. We will also lead in a number of important respects while advocating that idea. We will pilot that processing regime at Christmas Island. We will put our money where our mouth is and increase resources to UNHCR and we will put our money where the world's problems really are, which is with people who are displaced by poverty and war and famine and who need aid. And that is addressed in this document.

In terms of detention, clearly there's been a deep sense of community unease about detention conditions. Many people believe that treating anybody like that is not the Australian way. We understand that and we've responded to it. There are two very big protections in this document in relation to detention. One is an independent statutory officeholder, an Inspector-General of Detention, who will be able to deal with detention complaints and also inquire into systemic problems with detention. The second is an expert committee, which will review detention at 90 days and every 30 days thereafter. So, under Labor's system, there won't ever be a time where people are kept without review year after year, languishing in detention centres, which is what happens under this current Government.

It's a complex package. It's a series of interlocking measures, but it is a better way – a better way in terms of protecting Australia and a better way in terms of meeting people's legitimate concerns about how this nation is treating individual asylum seekers.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] Temporary Protection Visas, when people are assessed for the first time around and given refugee status, would they initially get a Temporary Protection Visa, or would those be phased out even at that early stage?

GILLARD: The proposal in this document, Labor's policy, is that a unauthorised arrival who does have a genuine refugee claim would in the first instance get a short Temporary Protection Visa. But we've answered the question the Government's squibbed so far, which is what happens at the end of that visa. We would not have a circumstance where someone could be here a lifetime continuously on Temporary Protection Visas. We think that's wrong and we will eradicate it. At the end of the first short-term Temporary Protection Visa, we will assess whether anything has changed in the country of origin of the refugee. If nothing has changed, then their protection needs are ongoing and they will get a Permanent Protection Visa.

JOURNALIST: How do they get a TPV if they have been assessed as a genuine refugee? What makes them different from other refugees that come in a different way?

GILLARD: What we found, and if you look at the current refugee issues around the world, is the nature of the global refugee problem is changing. In the Cold War, when we used to think of refugees as, you know, Hungarian weightlifters who came to the Olympics and defected, you could say that people's refugee status was going to last a lifetime. Increasingly, the nature of people displacement is that people have short-term protection needs. The Balkans is an example of that and, to some extent, Afghanistan's been an example of that. We therefore think it's important to have a first instance Temporary Protection Visa. If needs for protection are ongoing, people will then get a permanent status.

JOURNALIST: How long will short-term be for, and will those TPV holders have any rights to see immediate family, leave the country and return in tragic circumstances and so on?

GILLARD: Obviously, we're looking for – in using the phraseology short-term, we think it will be less of a period than the current three-year visa. During the period that a Temporary Protection Visa is in operation, people won't have rights to family reunion. But I say again, we won't have the circumstance that this Government has, where people can be in permanent limbo.

JOURNALIST: You can't say whether it's one year – when will you decide the timeframe?

GILLARD: Well, we're not saying at this stage exactly what the timeframe would be. We want a short first-instance Temporary Protection Visa. Obviously that's a matter that we can clarify over time, but it depends really on where we think global protection needs are at that stage. You would be aware that Temporary Protection Visas are increasingly a feature of the global refugee debate, because there is the perception that refugee needs are changing with short-term refugee circumstances.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] Can I just ask why, though, people who come on boats or to find asylum here are regarded differently in terms of short-term authority. Wouldn't the same issue of, you know, the changing needs apply to people who come through detention camps?

GILLARD: Well, the issue – obviously, there is a deterrence issue here as well in terms of unauthorised arrivals. And can I say at the outset of this package, we say – and it's very important to understand this – we understand in the way in which the Australian community intuitively understands that unauthorised boat arrivals are the worst of all possible worlds. The worst of all possible worlds from Australia's perspective in terms of managing our borders. It's the worst of all possible worlds for the asylum seekers involved, because many fail in the attempt, many die trying to get here in leaky boats. We therefore think a strategy which deters future boat arrivals is a good strategy, but we need to be dealing with people in a proper and decent way, an Australian way. And that's the balance in the package.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] on those who are returned. If they are found to be persecuted upon return, what course, do you bring them back or what?

GILLARD: The need for monitoring, people would be aware that there have been a lot of community-based groups have been concerned that this nation has returned people to a circumstance of persecution. We would say that no one in Australia would voluntarily return someone to a circumstance where they were going to get killed or tortured or unjustly imprisoned. We want to reassure people that Labor in Government is going to run the best possible processing system, so we're prepared to give people the ultimate guarantee. The ultimate guarantee is that we will monitor returns and we will be there visibly taking the political consequences of making any decisions that are wrong. We don't thing we're going to make any decisions that are wrong, but it's the ultimate guarantee to people that we believe we're going to be running an effective processing system.

JOURNALIST: In case you do make a wrong decision, though, and someone is getting persecuted upon return, would they be allowed back into Australia?

GILLARD: Obviously if a person in that circumstance re-entered Australia, that fact would go to their protection claim. But we're talking about monitoring, really, to see what happens, to assure ourselves and assure the community that the processing system is a sound one.

JOURNALIST: You say that you will be abolishing the ‘Pacific Solution', but by focusing on processing people offshore on Christmas Island in an excised area, aren't you essentially keeping the ‘Pacific Solution' in another form?

GILLARD: Absolutely not. When you look at the details in this package, let's talk about Christmas Island. It will have the only purpose-built detention facility on a large scale for asylum seekers. It will be there by the time of the election of the next Labor Government. What will happen to the asylum seekers there? They will have caseworker support. Every one of them will have some from a non-government organisation who is working with them. That doesn't happen under the ‘Pacific Solution'. Their processing will be oversighted by an expert committee. That doesn't happen with the ‘Pacific Solution'. An independent statutory officeholder, the Inspector-General of Detention, will be monitoring their detention conditions. That doesn't happen on Christmas Island. They will be in supervised hostels, largely in contact with the ordinary community. That doesn't happen on Christmas Island. We've already committed to having media access to detention centres. You'll be able to go there and talk to people. That doesn't happen under the ‘Pacific Solution'. It is completely untrue to suggest that this is a version of the ‘Pacific Solution'. This is a robust processing model piloting worldwide processing with a number of checks and balances to make sure people are processed quickly and fairly and treated well at the same time.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] to maintaining an excised detention centre, high security, on Christmas Island to ensure that asylum seekers are not on Australian soil and subject to all the appeals that go with it? And don't you face the prospect, particularly if there's an eruption somewhere and mass – and this is, as we know, when Labor first introduced mandatory detention because of the large influx. We've had another one. What if that happens again and Christmas Island cannot physically handle the high security for a large number of asylum seekers?

GILLARD: Clearly, there's always variability in refugee flows depending on world circumstances. That's the circumstance the Labor Government would face. It's the circumstance the current Government would face. Our projections are, and obviously the Government's projections are that we're not going to face imminent, large refugee flows. The Christmas Island facility is a 1200-person facility. It's large, it's purpose-built. We believe that it will be adequate to address current needs. You will note in the document that we want to stay in front of what's happening in the worldwide refugee issue. We think this Government didn't stay in front. It was caught by surprise, it claimed, by Middle Eastern asylum seekers, when anybody who was expert in the global protection movement could tell you that there were increasing outflows from the Middle East. We want to make sure we stay in front. We will have a special council, co-chaired by the Minister for Immigration and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to make sure we stay in front and understand what upcoming issues are going to be and are able to respond at the time.

JOURNALIST: You say there is a deep sense of community unease about all this, but is there? And isn't it half the reason that you're standing there and not in Government, because there was no deep sense of community unease and people didn't care?

GILLARD: I think when you talk to people they care about national security, and well they should. And they intuitively understand that unauthorised boat arrivals are the worst of all possible worlds. And they're right about that. But they also have an unease. When I talk to people, they have an unease that children, unaccompanied children – an 8-year-old in Woomera – people actually feel uneasy about those things. And I think people feel uneasy that this nation is processing people on Pacific islands without scrutiny. And I also think people understand that that's not a long-term solution. I've never had anybody suggest to me that they think that will be in operation five years, ten years, twenty years from now. My sense is people are looking for a better way. This is a better way. I would hope that there are no more boat arrivals. I think we would all hope that, but we want a plan that can be put in place by a Labor Government that is robust enough, good enough, to deal with refugee issues in 2015, refugee issues in 2020, refugee issues in 2030. It's a long-term plan that we're putting forward. Whether or not there are current boat arrivals is not relevant to assessing that long-term plan.

JOURNALIST: You are talking about bringing the children out from behind the razor wire, but does that mean that you are going to be separating kids from their families, or are you going to let the fathers come out as well?

GILLARD: There will be no separating of kids from their families. The current Government does that, Labor will not. There are children who arrive unaccompanied. They need to be cared for: in foster care arrangements for younger children; in community care arrangements for older children. This policy commits Labor to that. It also commits Labor to placing the guardianship of those children, not in the hands of the Minister for Immigration who has a conflict of interest in dealing with their guardianship, but in the hands of Labor's National Children's Commissioner.

In terms of kids who come with family members, what we say is that in the initial phase where people need to be in secure detention facilities, we will have secure detention facilities that will meet the needs of families. And we are looking at the alternate Woomera Detention trial as a model for that. Then family groups that have a claim of merit and they pose no health or security risks or absconding risks – which would tend to be true of family groups – will be able to go to a supervised hostel. We are not talking about separating families, but Minister Ruddock does.

JOURNALIST: How will you know if they are claims of merit at that stage?

GILLARD: A claim of merit will be determined by the department following a major interview, which the asylum seeker has been given an opportunity to prepare for. One of the problems in the current system is that departmental interviewing is done over several piecemeal rounds. We won't run it like that. We will have an interview which is the asylum seeker's opportunity to get every issue relevant to their case on the table. It will give us enough information to assess whether they have got a claim of merit.

JOURNALIST: the…[inaudible]…can be knocked back after that?

GILLARD: It will be a first-instance assessment as to whether there is merit in the claim. It will not be the final determination.

JOURNALIST: So if they don't get a claim of merit, they are still locked away with the family in something like the Woomera trial.

GILLARD: That's right. You do need a capacity for a secure detention for family groups. You need that capacity where people don't have claims of merit, where there might be a security issue about one family member and you don't want to split the family. There might be an absconding risk with one family member and you don't want to split the family. We would therefore have some secured accommodation along the lines of the Woomera Alternate Detention trial.

But let's be clear, that is a group of ordinary houses. Yes it is secured at the perimeter, but within the houses people can go about their own business the way you and I do in our houses. The kids can go to ordinary schooling, people can be taken out to shop, prepare their own food – all of that sort of thing. So it is a very different model from high-security detention compounds with institutional catering and the rest.

JOURNALIST: And only on Christmas Island?

GILLARD: No, if there is a need to – and obviously this is a function of numbers – but if there is a need to, there will be supervised hostel in Australia in a regional community that bids to host it.

JOURNALIST: Where will the hostels be located? Will you be proposing to build new facilities?

GILLARD: There will be a supervised hostel on Christmas Island. If numbers require and there is a need for a supervised hostel on the mainland, it will be in a regional community that bids to host it. The regional community will get all of the economic benefits flowing from hosting the facility.

JOURNALIST: On this pilot program program, do you have the agreement of the UNHCR to conduct this? And what makes you think that other countries will want to follow Australia's example?

GILLARD: Countries around the world – Simon Crean knows from his discussions in Europe,and particularly with Blair – people who have followed this debate know that around the world the issue in global protection is secondary movement. As a result of the change in communications and transport technologies and the rise of people-smuggling, more people now get further than they used to through the Channel Tunnel, and those sorts of things. All of the developed world, is looking at harmonising processing regimes to remove one incentive to forward movement. We have come up with an idea that actually pushes that further and better. We think it is an idea of merit and we want to pursue it in the international arena.

JOURNALIST: You haven't answered my question. Have you got UNHCR support for it, and why do you think other people would want to follow Australia?

GILLARD: We think other people would want to follow Australia because it solves the very issue that they are struggling with. So if another nation came up with a world-class idea that solved your problem, why wouldn't you pick it up? And we think other nations will pick this idea up.

In terms of UNHCR – UNHCR we have had discussions with and, obviously, UNHCR in and of itself cannot just determine overnight that it is going to change its global mandate. But UNHCR is looking at novel ways, new ways, of making the refugee convention work in the modern age, and this is a good idea.

JOUNALIST: [inaudible] this cop on the beat for the navy, in the interim until the Coastguard is formed, have the power and continued policy of turning back boats from Southeast Asia.

GILLARD: We will be replacing, as you say, Operation Relex with a purpose-specific Coastguard that will have the same interdiction protocols that the Navy has worked under.

JOURNALIST: …[inaudible]…And if so, under what circumstance would anyone get to Christmas Island?

GILLARD: Well, look, obviously if people are picked up in a life at sea circumstance - and that has happened - then they will be taken to Christmas Island. If they are in Australian waters or the contiguous zone, they will be taken to Christmas Island.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] use all possible, all necessary force to send people back to Indonesia? Is that the idea?

GILLARD: The Navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia. They were in sea-worthy shape and arrived in Indonesia. It has made a very big difference to people-smuggling that that happened. It has disrupted people-smuggling operations tremendously, that people who have paid actually ended up back there. We think that it is important, important from a humanitarian perspective and important from a security perspective, that we do everything we can to disrupt people-smuggling. And we think turning boats around that are sea-worthy, that can make the return journey, and are in international waters, fits in with that.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] what you're saying. That the Government's policy was right?

GILLARD: No, I'm not saying the Government's policy was right. Certainly, when you look at the steps that this Government has taken – what has worked? Two things have worked. Better coastal surveillance has worked. The problem for the Government is, the way in which they are doing that better coastal surveillance is unsustainable over time. They know it and we know it. We have got a sustainable plan over time, a purpose-specific Coastguard.

The other thing that has worked is better policing in Indonesia. They have got two Australian Federal Police officers up there. We would increase the number of Australian Federal Police undertaking police work, dealing with people-smugglers in Indonesia.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, do you regret not having something like this out 18 months ago?

CREAN: There is no point having those regrets. The question is `Where do we go from here? And I undertook to ensure that we did develop that policy, and we have. It is now a matter for determination by the Caucus.

JOURNALIST: Do you endorse Christmas Island because it's going to be, the money is going to be spent and it is up and running at the next election? Or do you endorse the Government's principle that asylum seekers that come by boat should not set foot on Australian soil before they are processed and that it is a deterrent?

CREAN: Well, that is a Government principle, but it hasn't happened in fact, Michael. The people who are on Manus and Nauru, and then I think – what, 312 of them now – who have set foot on Australian soil. And that is another demonstration that their ‘Pacific Solution' has not worked.

We made the distinction about Christmas Island at the time we opposed the further excision by this Government of all those islands around the country. I don't see how we strengthen our borders by surrendering them, and that is why we oppose their further excision.

But the truth of it is Christmas Island is strategically placed. It is close to Indonesia. It's where people headed for. It is also true that a purpose-built facility has been committed, has been budgeted for, and will be in place when we assume office. It would be silly not to use those facilities. But the distinction in relation to Christmas Island and the others was made some months ago by us. But take note of the points that Julia has made. Anyone who tries to argue that this is the same as the ‘Pacific Solution', that's nonsense.

JOURNALIST: No, but it's also true to say that people going to Christmas Island will be denied access to all levels of appeal under Australian law. And that's what Labor is now backing even though when you passed it last year you were arguing – at least privately – that you would have a look at it in office?

CREAN: It's true that that distinction exists, Fran, but the reason it exists is because the regime under which people are processed on Christmas Island is the UNHCR proposals. And there's no – where UNHCR processes, there are no appeal rights. Now, we have recognised that we have to deal with the appeal rights within our country, and we're saying that they should be simplified – a one-stop-shop operation. We said that going into the last election. We disagreed with the Government's model. We had an alternate model, but we were happy to have the Government's model tried. Now, these proposals still commit to the one-stop-shop approach but, yes, there is a distinction between Christmas Island. Why? Because that's the UNHCR approach and that, I've got to be frank with you, is a point of difference within the Caucus. But it's a point of difference that will be resolved on Thursday.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible]

GILLARD: No, we make it clear in the document that if there are unauthorised arrivals on the mainland – and you do get some by air and you might get some through seaports with ship-jumping and the like – that they will be accommodated at Baxter. If there is a need, then we will keep the asylum seeker capacity at Port Hedland.

JOURNALIST: People who are in detention in Australia when you take office, already, will the boatpeople be left in Australia or will they go to Christmas Island?

GILLARD: No, if there are asylum seekers in detention on the mainland when we take office, then they wouldn't be moved. But the new regime in terms of the Asylum Seeker Processing Review Committee reviewing why they are still in detention, the Inspector-General of Detention, the casework support would apply to them.

JOURNALIST: Mr Crean, you said that the Christmas Island approach is the UNHCR approach. But the UNHCR has argued that refugees and asylum seekers should come to the Australian mainland to be processed. So do you expect that, you know, they will have some concerns about that approach?

CREAN: Well, we have had discussion with the UNHCR, as both Julia and I have indicated. We would like to work more closely with the UNHCR in developing the lasting solution. I think it is terribly important. I think that what – Australia has been attractive because people can country‑hop in the hope of getting a different outcome. I think it is in all of our interests to try and develop a system of consistency so that we don't encourage that country-hopping.

The point that Julia made before is correct. We don't want to see any more people coming by boats as asylum seekers. Not by the people smugglers, it is the worst form. It is the worst form for them. It is the trade being plied in human misery. And it also creates the tensions here whereby people, rightly or wrongly, argue the queue-jumping argument. What we have got to try and get is some order into the process, and that is where it is vitally important to work through the UNHCR to achieve that.

JOURNALIST: …keep Christmas Island excised, do you think then that that would provide an incentive for people smugglers to go anywhere but Christmas Island, and even come straight to the Australian mainland like you have argued in the past?

CREAN: Well it hasn't to date, and the reason it hasn't is not just because of Christmas Island. It is because, fundamentally, there have been better arrangements reached by this Government with the Indonesians. They won't admit it, because it is in their interests to pretend to the world at large that the ‘Pacific Solution' has stopped all of the boats. Well, the reality is, what we were calling for at the beginning has essentially stopped the boats. That is better cooperation, better intelligence-sharing, better deterrence at the source. And what we are talking about here is the need to continue and enhance those activities, get better understandings with the Indonesians, and stop the flow of the people smugglers.

But, if we are going to argue that, we have to as a country that has always believed – and certainly within the Labor Party, particularly over the last 50years – when this nation has been built on multiculturalism, and people coming from other countries in circumstances in which they have had to flee oppression included. We believe in that tolerance, that understanding, that humane dimension. That is what we have got to get back to. But we have got to recognise that this is a problem now of global proportions. And it is different, and that is why it needs different solutions. And Australia alone can't address it. Australia has to take its decisions, but those decisions which are consistent with and drive an international and a lasting solution.

JOUNALIST: Mr Crean, policies that take down the razor wire, apparently, at the detention centres or will that remain in place?

CREAN: Well, the high detention facility at Baxter doesn't have razor wire. I have visited Baxter, and so too has Julia.

JOURNALIST: It's got an electric fence.

CREAN: Well, it has got the perimeter fences but, I mean, no one is arguing – and we are certainly not – that you don't need some form of high-detention facility. I mean, after all we are dealing with people who arrive here, who you don't know anything of the background about. And that is why mandatory detention must be retained, to establish that fact. And it is why you need facilities that, having gone through the process, you determine people to be at a risk to our society. Of course you need facilities that do it.

But they can be done in a more humane way, and they should be done in a more humane way. We do have to secure the nation's citizenry, but that doesn't mean you can't do it in a decent way.

JOURNALIST: You talked about resolving the points of differences on Thursday in your Caucus meeting. But obviously you have got people even on your own frontbench fundamentally opposed to three positions within your policy: Christmas Island, TPVs and mandatory detention. How are you going to handle the dissenters within your own, within Caucus, and within your own, sort of, frontbench?

CREAN: Through the party processes. Are you suggesting that a political party shouldn't have disagreement? Are you suggesting that there shouldn't be differences of opinion? Anyone who has followed this debate knows that there are those differences of opinion. What I have tried to do is a number of things. One is to put the best person policy in charge of developing the policy, and I think all of you have seen today that I have made that call correctly. What I have also argued is that this is a complex issue and it is not just divisions within the Caucus that are there, there are divisions in the community.

And the task of political leadership is to understand what those differences are. If you can reconcile them, by all means do it – and in a number of areas we have. If you can't, you have got to make the judgement call and lead on it. And that is what I have done. That is what the Shadow Cabinet has done. No one is pretending that was unanimous, but that is in the nature of the Shadow Cabinet reflecting the sort of differences that are there within the Caucus. But the Caucus ultimately will determine it. But they now have clear guidance as to the basis upon which the issue should be determined, and that will be done on Thursday.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] that don't agree on the policy? Would you expect them to step down, because they are going to have to argue it at the next election?

CREAN: Look, I don't know why there is this obsession with always trying to deal with the hypothetical in advance of the process being exhausted, Matt. I mean, don't try and pretend. I am not pretending that there aren't differences in the party – I never have done. And every time I have been at a press conference and you have asked me about it, I have acknowledged it. There are differences within other political parties about these sorts of things. The challenge is to have a mechanism that resolves them and to ensure that people believe the due process has been followed, that they have had the opportunity to have their say.

JOURNALIST: …[inaudible]…to go out and confidently sell the policy that comes out on Thursday?

CREAN: I expect that when this decision is determined by the party that all members of the Caucus go out to promote it. That is what Caucus decisions are. That is what party decisions are. It is the same as the Special Rules Conferences. There were differences of opinion there, but people accept the decision. And that is the process that we are going through

JOURNALIST: Are you confident it will be passed, though?

CREAN: I am not going to pre-empt the Caucus.

JOURNALIST: What about maintaining a blockade [inaudible] in terms of twice-daily surveillance flights and permanent ships up there, stationed [inaudible]

CREAN: Are you talking about the Relex Operation?

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] that you maintain the Coastguard at the current level that of intensity that the Navy's operating, with twice-daily surveillance flights and permanent or more than one boats based up there.

CREAN: Well, the level of intensity, I don't seek to address there. What I am saying is that the Coastguard announcement that we made the other day will enhance our capacity significantly to patrol the borders.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible]

CREAN: Well, I think that it is important that you understand the Coastguard. It is not just the additional three patrol boats, and I don't know whether you have been on a Naval patrol boat.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible]

CREAN: Well then, I'd suggest that some of you do, because they are totally ill-equipped, if they intercepted a boat that was sinking, to take people on board. There is just no capacity. That is why they have been using the hydrographic vessels. Vessels that have been commissioned by the Navy, bought by the Navy, to actually chart our waters, can't do it – because they are our there doing a Relex Operation in the event that a boat arrives and sinks. Now…

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] Coastguard. I just wondered whether you are going to maintain such a heavy operation up there in an effort to keep people away, and it is only those that either sneak through or are threatened to die at sea that actually go …

CREAN: We will using the Coastguard to deter the people-smugglers. But just as importantly, the drug-runners, the gun-runners and those in the illegal fisheries. I think the Coastguard operation will also be enhanced with the additional intelligence-gathering operation. So the Coastguard will enhance our border protection, not just maintain it.

JOURNALIST: Can I ask a related question? There is concern about this on SIEV X, with the people-smuggler Abu Hussein, could be released on the migration charges that he is facing and not charged with manslaughter. Is there, would you like to see this person charged with manslaughter? Do you support any calls for a judicial inquiry into the sinking of the SIEV X?

CREAN: I would have to take advice on that, Michael. I haven't kept up to date with the latest developments in terms of this individual. I will follow it up, I will get back to you.

Okay. Thanks very much.

(ends)