Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for the question. As I have made clear in parliament over a number of days as we have discussed this matter, we are determined to implement the arrangement with Malaysia because the advice to us is that it would have the maximum deterrence effect. The advice to us—and this advice has been shared with the opposition—is that it would have the maximum deterrence effect. The advice to us is that Nauru would not have that deterrence effect, and that advice has been shared with the opposition.

Can I also say to the shadow minister who asked the question: at the end of the day, whether you determine that Malaysia is the best way forward or, as those opposite have determined, that Nauru is the best way forward, what will come before this parliament and the amendments that I have given the Leader of the Opposition today are not specific about Nauru. They are not specific about Malaysia. They are about empowering government to act.

The shadow minister who asked the question obviously does believe that Nauru is the best solution. I would refer him not only to the Solicitor-General's advice but to the advice of respected commentators like Ron Merkel QC: 'In respect of both Nauru and PNG, there must be great doubt that a declaration by the minister would be valid.' He is obviously saying you need to legislate. Stephen Estcourt QC said, 'Any declaration of Nauru or PNG under section 198A(3) would, notwithstanding the obvious points of distinction, likely meet the same fate as the recently invalidated declaration with respect to Malaysia.' International law expert Professor Don Rothwell said:

… offshore processing in Malaysia, as per the High Court's decision, and in Nauru or Papua New Guinea, would not be legally permissible.

Finally there are the views of the shadow Attorney-General, who provides advice to the opposition and who on radio said this—

See this speech in context