Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
Sky News
Australian Agenda
Chris Bowen
24th
October, 2010
Interview with Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen
Australian Agenda program, 24th October, 2010
Peter Van Onselen: Hello and welcome to Australian Agenda. I’m Peter Van Onselen.
The return of the House of Representatives during the week was dominated by debate
over Afghanistan, as well as some controversy surrounding a change in detention centre
policy. We’ll be talking about that with the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, shortly.
But first, let me introduce our panel: chief political correspondent from The Australian
newspaper, Matthew Franklin; also from The Australian newspaper, Paul Maley; and the
editor-at-large, Paul Kelly. Thanks for your company. Well let’s talk about those issues
right now with the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, who’s been good enough to join
us here in the studio. Thanks for your company.
Chris Bowen: Pleasure. Good morning.
Peter Van Onselen: Can I start by going to this issue in the Adelaide Hills? The
community there is pretty angry about what’s happening. There’s a new detention
centre facility that’s starting up at an old Army barracks there at Woodside. I just wanted
to play something that the local residents have had to say in expressing their outrage.
Let’s have a listen.
“By the sounds of it, no-one knew it was coming, other than federal
government. And we just got, you know, here you go, there are 400
people moving in, and it’s a done deal and it’s not negotiable, and
enjoy!”
“Like everybody else, disgusted. You know, there’s enough detention
centres around Australia, rather than having one here. So why would
you want to ruin the Adelaide Hills?”
Peter Van Onselen: Minister, detention facilities have to go somewhere, so inevitably
there’s a bit of nimbyism when they end up in people’s backyards. But my issue with
this and why I think that the public have a right to be upset is that there wasn’t a
consultation beforehand, before the decision was made. And perhaps a little bit more
cynically, the Prime Minister for the first time ventured into that particular electorate, that
particular community, 24 hours before the announcement was made for a photo op, but
made no mention of this announcement. Do you understand why the community in that
sort of context feels like they’ve had absolutely no say in this?
Chris Bowen: Well I certainly have said these sort of reactions are understandable.
We’ve handled this the same way as governments in time immemorial have handled
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
these issues. We talked to the Department of Defence and other government
departments about what commonwealth sites are available, established which sites are
appropriate, made sure that they’re not needed for any other purpose, make the
determination to use it as a detention facility.
Peter Van Onselen: But you’d at least conceded it’s a bad look for the Prime Minister to
have happened to have been there the day before for a photo op?
Chris Bowen: Of course the cabinet hadn’t made the decision when the Prime Minister
was there. The cabinet made the decision on Monday and we announced it on Monday,
which is where possible the way I like to do things, to announce decisions as closely as
possible to when they’re made. In relation to Inverbrackie, there have been concerns
raised for example about the impact on local health services. I’ve made it very clear, we
bring in health services into the detention facility. There will be no impact on local health
services. I understand people’s concerns. I understand people wanting to be reassured
about that. I can give that reassurance. In relation to schooling and education, there
have been concerns about whether the local school can cope. Let me make it very clear
again, if the local school community, the local school feels that they can’t take those
extra children, then they won’t. We have a range of possibilities that we can work
through in consultation with the local community. There are independent schools have
approached us and said we’d like to educate children from that centre. We can move
teachers into the detention facility itself and run education there. So we have a range of
options which we work through in consultation with the local community. That’s exactly
what we’re doing. So I do understand some of the concerns that have been raised, and
I do understand the call for more notice about these things. What the Prime Minister and
I also announced was contingency plans into the future, so that these issues are able to
be worked through. That’s a change that we’ve made, so we’ve announced 11 Mile for
example in Darwin as a contingency plan, which we’ll utilise if we need to. So we can
begin those discussions now.
Peter Van Onselen: What about your language on some of this. You said on the ABC’s
PM program that a parliamentary committee, which was the idea of the local member,
Jamie Briggs, to let a parliamentary committee look at this, you called it a stunt.
Matthew Franklin: I’m sure it was a stunt!
Chris Bowen: It is a stunt, I think we can agree on that, yes.
Peter Van Onselen: But you also said that parliamentary committees are political
organisations and therefore not appropriate to deal with something like this. Is that also
the case? Are they also purely political organisations over things like the Climate
Change Committee, or the Murray-Darling?
Chris Bowen: This is about a specific proposal, a specific decision. The Department of
Immigration are the right people to work through the issues in relation to the running of
this facility, not a parliamentary committee. Jamie Briggs has promised that if the Liberal
Party is elected, they’ll close down the facility. What consultation does he want to do
through a parliamentary committee when he’s made his mind up? This is a bit silly. It’s
a stunt on behalf of the Liberal Party. As I say, we’ll work through the issues. Now I visit
detention centres and facilities across the country. When I do, I sit down with the local
Mayor, the local community. Without exception they say to me that the relationship with
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
the Department of Immigration is good. They find the Department consultative. Any
issues which arise, we deal with.
Peter Van Onselen: You say consultative, but in this case the Mayor was called 15
minutes before the decision was announced, the Premier an hour before.
Chris Bowen: I’m talking about when the facility is up and running, any issues that arise
we deal with as cooperatively as we can with the local community.
Paul Kelly: Minister, if we can just go to the essence of the policy that you announced,
can I just ask, is it just to take vulnerable families out of detention into community
detention? Or is the aim over a period of time to take most families and children out?
Chris Bowen: It’s to take most families and children out, Paul. As I said on the day we
announced this, we’d prioritise vulnerable families. They may be where clearly a family
has been through torture or trauma, suffering mental anguish, maybe where the mother
is pregnant. They will be prioritised. I’m also keen to prioritise what we call
unaccompanied minors. They’re normally young boys who’ve made the journey out by
themselves with no parents around, and I’m concerned about the lack of role models
that they may have. So they’re my priority.
Paul Kelly: So if we just look at numbers overall, I think you said during the week that by
June next year you’d like to see between 500 and 1,000 people out. But if we take it
over a longer time period, maybe say over the course of the current parliamentary term,
what might the numbers be over a period of say three years?
Chris Bowen: It’s very hard to judge, because you don’t know how many people you’ll
have in the system in any one time.
Paul Kelly: Sure. Well perhaps proportions then, in terms of percentages as well?
Chris Bowen: Absolutely. By next June, I want to have the vast majority of
unaccompanied minors in community detention and a sizeable proportion of families out
of detention facilities and into the community detention system. I think you could expect
that to continue. Obviously there will be times when people can’t be released into those
facilities, where relevant agencies have raised security concerns about individuals.
Obviously then I wouldn’t be making that determination. I’m using the existing powers
under the Act, which provide the Minister discretion as to when and how to do this on a
case by case basis, and which conditions to put on, on a case by case basis.
Paul Kelly: But does this mean in fact that the only families at the end of the day that
won’t come out are those where there is some sort of security problem?
Chris Bowen: Where there’s capacity to take them. Obviously again, we’re working with
the community sector, churches and charities. They’re very keen, they tell me that they
can accommodate these sorts of people, that they have the facilities, that they are very
excited about doing this. But obviously I don’t want to set arbitrary targets or deadlines if
the community sector feels that they need a little bit more time for people.
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
Matthew Franklin: Minister, this does seem to be a significant shift back towards a more
conscience driven position. People have described you as finding Labor’s conscience
on this. Where did Labor’s conscience go? Why wasn’t this done a year ago?
Chris Bowen: Look, it builds on the 2008 detention values. When I came in, I looked at
the situation and decided there could be a better way of doing this, better for the
individuals concerned, better for the system, more efficient in terms of use of taxpayers’
dollars, just as a better way going forward.
Paul Maley: How much of this was to do with Labor discovering its conscience, and how
much of it was to do with the Immigration Department running out of detention space?
Because that seems to be the real driver here.
Chris Bowen: No, no.
Paul Maley: You were chockers three months ago, but you didn’t do it before the
election.
Chris Bowen: No, as I’ve said clearly, it does have an impact on our detention system.
It does relieve some of the pressure. But the motivating factor is that there’s a better
way of dealing with these things. It is better for everybody concerned, in my view, to
have children and families in detention in the community. All the evidence is that it
improves voluntary return rates. The evidence is that the mental anguish suffered is
better. I don’t mind if people either return to where they’ve come from or they’re
accepted into the community after the process. I think it’s better all round that they are
in detention in the community, in what we call community detention, still with conditions
on, but able to move more freely about the community. It’s better either way for
everybody concerned.
Paul Maley: Sorry, just to clarify one of Paul’s points, do we take it that the medium to
long term objective here is ultimately to get all family groups out of detention and into the
community?
Chris Bowen: Certainly the majority, absolutely. There will be people in detention when
they first arrive for example for the obvious basic health checks and initial intelligence
assessments. Then we’ll be working to move them into the community. Obviously how
long that takes will depend on a range of factors, including the capability of the
community sector to cope.
Paul Kelly: I’d like to ask you about public opinion, Minister. Do you think that the public
is ready to accept this? You’ve made the point that opinion is polarised about these
sorts of issues. So what’s your reading of where public opinion is?
Chris Bowen: I’m not really sure, Paul. But I think we’ll find out. But I think what we
need to do is provide leadership and explain the reasons for this change. I think in terms
of local communities, I think they’ll be very accepting. I think if you look at events over
recent days for example, there are concerns about large numbers of people going into
one location, which I understand. But I think where people move into community
facilities run by the Red Cross or other charities or church groups in smaller numbers, I
think communities will be overwhelmingly very receptive to that. I think that school
communities will welcome asylum seeker children into their communities across the
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
country. We’re talking about a relatively small number of people spread across the
country here. So I think that on that basis, community will be supportive.
Matthew Franklin: Minister, to what extent is this rediscovery of Labor’s conscience a
function of the fact that you are now dealing closely with the Greens? Tony Abbott has
said a number of times that Labor is the government, but the Greens are in power. How
do you respond to that?
Chris Bowen: That’s just not right. This was a government decision, through
government processes, informed by Labor values. This was a decision by us. Now the
Greens’ position on these issues is well known. Their position is different to ours. They
believe that there should be a legislative amendment; we don’t support that. We’re
using the existing powers. But this is a decision which I took to the cabinet, the cabinet
had a long and thorough discussion about, and was endorsed. It was a government
decision based on Labor values.
Paul Maley: Minister, questions about detention or discussions about detention
arrangements sort of beg a larger question, and that is what do you do to stop the
boats? So I just want to ask a very simple question and preferably get a very simple
answer. Yes or no, does Labor have a plan to stop the boats? And if so, what is it?
Chris Bowen: What we have is a plan to deal with the causes of the issue. What I won’t
do, Paul, as you know, is engage is sound grabs and cheap and false promises. What I
will do is say we need a comprehensive policy solution. That comprehensive policy
solution means talking to our regional partners. It means dealing with the issue in the
region. Scott Morrison and I don’t agree on very much, but we do perhaps agree on this,
that we need to remove the people smugglers’ business model. Certainly that’s my
view. He says the way to do that is to bring in TPVs and to reopen Nauru.
Paul Maley: It’s a plan, not a locket.
Chris Bowen: But on TPVs, everybody knows, 90% of TPVs are eventually overturned
and allowed permanent residency, and the vast majority of people in Nauru were
eventually admitted to Australia. We know that. The people smugglers know that. The
asylum seekers know that.
Paul Maley: But they didn’t know it at the time.
Chris Bowen: But I think the evidence is now in, Paul. People aren’t silly. They’ll see
what happened last time, and this just underlines the intellectual bankruptcy of the
Liberal position.
Paul Kelly: I appreciate that the proposal for the processing centre in East Timor is still
in its early days, but what can you actually tell us in terms of the government’s thinking
and your thinking about how it will work? I mean, is this going to be a processing centre
that encompasses all the Bali Process nations? I mean, surely that can’t work.
Chris Bowen: No, I don’t envisage that being the case. The Bali Process, which is the
process established for this region and for some source countries and people with an
interest in the issue and the Asia Pacific region to work these issues through, and we’ll
take it through the auspices of the Bali Process. Now, that does not mean that every
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
signatory to the Bali Process will automatically become of course part of our regional
discussions. It may be that a core group of countries enter into an agreement.
Paul Kelly: So what are those core group of nations that you would like to see involved
in this?
Chris Bowen: Obviously I’ve been discussing the issue with Timor-Leste, with Indonesia
and Malaysia, and we’ll also continue discussions with a range of our other regional
partners. It’s fairly self-evident, I would have thought, as to who our key partners in the
region are and who are the key people who we need to be talking to about progressing
this.
Paul Kelly: Does Indonesia support this idea?
Chris Bowen: Indonesia and Australia are joint chairs of the Bali Process.
Paul Kelly: But does Indonesia support the idea of a processing centre in East Timor?
Chris Bowen: Certainly in my discussions with Foreign Minister Natalegawa, who has
the main carriage with this, he certainly understands it’s a regional issue which needs a
regional approach. He indicated he was very keen for Australia and Indonesia to be
dealing with the issue.
Matthew Franklin: Can you answer the question? He’s asked you whether they support
it.
Chris Bowen: I’ve been very clear about this, Paul and Matthew. Indonesia have said
that they recognise it’s a regional problem, they want to work up the proposal. They’re
not going to sign into a proposal now in the lead-up to the Bali Process, but they want us
to be working very closely together through the Bali Process.
Peter Van Onselen: So they’re sympathetic, but they don’t yet support it?
Chris Bowen: Well, they’re sympathetic certainly to the concept of a regional framework.
They certainly understand the need for it. They certainly understand that it is perhaps
the only sustainable policy solution going forward over the long term.
Paul Maley: You talk about this being a regional problem, but the boats are coming to
Australia. It’s Australia’s problem. What’s in it for the region? Where’s the motivation
for Indonesia to participate in something like this?
Chris Bowen: Indonesia doesn’t appreciate the fact they have people smugglers on their
shores. Indonesia doesn’t appreciate the fact that people are transiting through
Indonesia. Indonesia understands quite clearly that we need to break that people
smuggling business model. In my discussions with the Indonesian government, they
recognise that this is a very worthy idea, a very worthy idea to be taken forward.
Paul Maley: There was some confusion, to pick up on Paul’s point, there was some
confusion in estimates last week about what would constitute the region, quote unquote,
which countries would be- Do you have a definition of the region?
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
Chris Bowen: I thought that debate was a bit silly, frankly.
Paul Maley: Well, what’s the region?
Chris Bowen: Well, the region is the Asia Pacific. We’re in the Asia Pacific region, and
I’ve been quite clear about which nations I’ve been talking to and which nations we’ll
continue to talk to. I think with all due respect to the opposition, I thought it was a bit
Year 7 debating. What region are we in, Mr. Metcalf? I thought that was just all a bit
silly.
Matthew Franklin: Can I just take you briefly to another issue? Julia Gillard has been
locking horns with Kristina Keneally over the NSW government’s attempts to walk away
from a deal to harmonise Occupational Health and Safety laws. They’re both digging in.
You’re a NSW Minister, what are you doing about it? What do you see as the outcome?
Can people like yourself have some influence through the NSW Labor Party?
Chris Bowen: No, my role is Immigration Minister, and there’s clearly a Minister focused
on Occupational Health and Safety. I do have one or two things on in the immigration
portfolio. But I will say this, this is an extremely important economic reform. It is very
important that it’s delivered, and the Prime Minister is 100% right to be very firm on our
views on this.
Peter Van Onselen: Well Paul Howse, the head of the Australia Workers’ Union, wrote
his column today saying that Kristina Keneally is 100% right, so he’s just dead wrong?
Chris Bowen: I disagree with Paul fundamentally on that issue. I think that very clearly
this is an important economic reform, and very clearly the reform protects Occupational
Health and Safety. The Occupational Health and Safety record in NSW is in many
respects no different to other states. But it’s extremely important that we have a uniform
Occupational Health and Safety system across the country.
Paul Kelly: I’d like to ask you a question about your responsibilities as Minister. Under
the Howard government when the Pacific Solution was being negotiated, Foreign
Minister Downer did most of the work. Why have you got carriage of this issue, dealing
with the regional processing centre, which is basically a foreign policy negotiation? Why
hasn’t Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd got carriage of this issue?
Chris Bowen: Because it’s an immigration issue. With respect, Paul, my understanding
is it’s a continuation of the arrangement between former Minister Smith and former
Minister Evans. Clearly Kevin and I are working closely together on it. We talk very
regularly about it. We compare notes about our discussions and he’s assisting in his
discussions with his counterparts. But very clearly . . .
Paul Kelly: . . . Does he support this concept?
Chris Bowen: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Paul Kelly: He is committed to it, is he?
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
Chris Bowen: Without question. What we’ve said is that a regional framework must be
in keeping with UNHCR principles. UNHCR should be as involved as they can be, and
that it must provide better protection for people. Kevin Rudd is 100% committed to this.
Peter Van Onselen: Kevin Rudd said, going back to before the election when he was
overthrown as leader, that he wouldn’t lurch to the right on asylum seekers policy. Has
he been involved in this finding of Labor’s conscience with the new policy?
Chris Bowen: This was my policy that I took to the cabinet and my proposal to the
cabinet. But clearly Kevin supports it.
Paul Kelly: Can I ask you about the assessment of the Immigration Department about
the future outlook for boats? We’ve had a lot of boats arriving this year. We’ve had a lot
of boats coming since the election was held. What’s your judgement about the flow of
boats coming up over the course of the next 12 months? Do you think that they’ll arrive
in roughly the rate we’ve seen so far?
Chris Bowen: Certainly indications are that there are still a number of people leaving
Afghanistan, there are still a number of people in Indonesia. So certainly the issues that
have been driving recent events are continuing. In relation to projections and figures,
they can be very difficult obviously to make. But clearly there continue to be regional
and global issues which are driving people around the world to be seeking asylum, of
course not just in Australia. A very, very small proportion of people who seek asylum
actually come to Australia, under 2%, but around the world and Europe in particular, we
are seeing flows of people.
Paul Kelly: Can I ask you why you don’t publicise more the fact that we’ve now got a
harder line, that when it comes to Afghanistan, for example, the approval rate is now
down to about 50%? This is obviously a pretty significant disincentive. Why don’t you
talk more about that?
Chris Bowen: I have been, Paul, and your fine journal has been writing it! I think that’s
important. It’s important to be, just frankly, clear with people about that, because if you
are thinking about making this journey, and previously approval rates had been well over
90%, now for Afghans the trend is towards 50%. I think that’s an important message.
Some people have criticised me, Paul, for being too vocal about that.
Paul Kelly: Sure.
Chris Bowen: But that’s not the message frankly, primarily, for domestic consumption,
that is being clear to people, if you want to make this journey, you’ll be vigorously and
rigorously assessed. Now let’s be very clear. This is not a government target. We don’t
mandate this. This is not an objective. This is simply the result of the Department of
Immigration rigorously applying their standards in relation to determining whether
somebody is a genuine refugee or not.
Paul Maley: Would we be right in assuming, just going back to my request for a clear
answer on whether or not you’ve got a plan, because I didn’t get a clear answer-
Chris Bowen: We do have a plan. Let me be very clear. There is a regional framework.
Australian Agenda
24
th
October 2010
Chris Bowen
Paul Maley: Okay, so that’s it. The plan is, what? A regional framework and a lower
recognition rate? Are those essentially the two levers that you’ll be pulling?
Chris Bowen: I think they are not only very important levers, sustainably they are the
ones that can make a difference. But as I stressed, the recognition rates are not
government policy. I need to be very clear about that. That is the result. Recognition
rates move around depending on the caseload that arrives at any particular time. But it
is nevertheless important, as Paul correctly points out, that that be well known.
Paul Maley: Lowering recognition rates needs to be backed up with deportations, and I
think you’ve deported 160 there odd.
Chris Bowen: Between 2008 and now.
Paul Maley: That’s right, over the last two and a half years you’ve deported about 160
asylum seekers, and we’ve had about 8,500 arrive. Your deportation regime is a joke. It
just lacks any credibility, doesn’t it?
Chris Bowen: Well that 150 of course reflects for a substantial proportion of that period
our recognition rates, which are much higher than they are now. That needs to be borne
into account. Also I’m the first to agree, in relation to Afghanistan, that it’s important that
we have more removals to Afghanistan, and we’re in discussions with the Afghan
government. There’s no memorandum of understanding with the Afghan government
about that. I would like to see that rectified going forward. Also, as I said before, I think
voluntary return rates are important as well, because it’s obviously much easier for
everybody involved if we have voluntary return rates higher when asylum claims aren’t
recognised. It may well be the case, as a result of these changes, that’s one of the
factors which we see arising out of that. It’s not the reason I did it, but it may be a
product.
Peter Van Onselen: Minister, one final question before we let you go, John Howard in
his autobiography, according to the extract, says that he thinks that Kevin Rudd would
have easily won the last election. Has he got something right in that?
Chris Bowen: I don’t think it’s necessarily useful or helpful to go through that. But can I
say, I think with all due respect . . .
Peter Van Onselen: . . . That’s not a no!
Chris Bowen: Let me say this. With all due respect to Mr. Howard, and I do have
respect for him, I think he got the Liberal Party leadership wrong. I think he made a
mistake there, and I think he’s got his analysis of the Labor Party leadership wrong as
well.
Peter Van Onselen: That’s a good, succinct answer. Minister Bowen, Immigration
Minister, we appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.
Chris Bowen: Thanks very much.
NEWS 
