Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that 400 boat people have already arrived since the agreement with Malaysia to take just 800, does the government have any concluded agreement with Malaysia to take more should that be necessary?

Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There are many dobbers in the place! I was about to say that, if that was the parliamentary secretary, he is warned. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. I say to the member for Macquarie: the arrangement we have entered into with Malaysia is for the transfer of 800 people. The arrangement remains for the transfer of 800 people. We have the clearest possible advice from the experts that advise government that it is the plan with the maximum deterrence effect.

The member for Macquarie may want to come to a different policy conclusion. That is a matter for her as a member of the House of Representatives. But, if the policy conclusion she comes to is that she would prefer to see asylum seeker processing on Nauru, she would need to directly confront the question: what are the implications of the High Court case?

The implications of the High Court case are that she could not make that decision without it being the subject of a great deal of legal doubt and she certainly could not start transferring unaccompanied minors to Nauru. The Solicitor-General's advice about the High Court case is crystal clear on that.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was about whether the government has concluded any additional agreement with Malaysia to take more.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will relate her material to the question in a directly relevant manner.

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

I am asked about the Malaysia agreement and I am talking about factors relating to it and operationalising it. I am reminding the member for Macquarie that, if she has not read and absorbed the Solicitor-General's advice, that is something she may choose to do. She may have already done so, but if she does absorb that advice she will see that his view, as Solicitor-General, the highest legal adviser the government has, is that processing on Nauru is subject to legal risk without amending the legislation and certainly unaccompanied minors could not be transferred. In those circumstances, even if you ran the legal risk in relation to transferring adults, you would obviously be in the position where you would be at some risk that people smugglers would start choosing to fill boats with children. No-one wants to run those risks.

That means we need to amend the legislation and the question that will be before the parliament once the legislation is introduced is whether the opposition will vote for that and put executive government in the position that the Howard government was and that this government believed itself to be before the High Court case. I have been advised that the Leader of the Opposition has accepted the offer for a briefing at five o'clock on Friday afternoon in Melbourne. I am very pleased to see that.

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume her seat. Haranguing anybody is out of order.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the question of the member for Macquarie. How can the Prime Minister reconcile her statement a moment ago that the 800 figure was the best advice that the government had with the concession of the secretary of the immigration department in his briefing to me last week that the 800 figure was 'just conjecture'.

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

The Leader of the Opposition has either misheard or misconstrued or is misrepresenting what I just said.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I am taking the question seriously and I will answer it, so maybe the opposition might want to cut the abuse and listen to the answer.

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House will come to order. A question has been asked and the Prime Minister is responding.

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

We are discussing a matter of national interest and I presume all members of the House would be interested in this discussion. I may be wrong about that, but I will assume that all members of this House have an interest in securing Australia's borders and in the best possible policy in relation to refugees and asylum seekers.

In response to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I was asked by the member for Macquarie about whether we had an arrangement for 800 or whether we had extended it. I confirmed it was an arrangement for 800. I then went on to explain what I believed to be the merits of that agreement—that we had the best possible advice that the Malaysia agreement provided the best possible deterrence. I did not put that specifically about the figure and that is what the Leader of the Opposition has either misheard, misconstrued or is seeking to misrepresent. The Leader of the Opposition knows from the briefings he has received that the advice to us from the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and more broadly is that they believe the Malaysia arrangement has the maximum deterrence.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I asked her the basis on which the figure of 800 was chosen. Was it just conjecture?

Government members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition's point of order, but it could only be on direct relevance. I am listening carefully to the Prime Minister's answer.

Mr Crean interjecting—

Order! I indicate to the minister for regional Australia that when I talk about haranguing it is not just haranguing from my left.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson should not take too much comfort. The Prime Minister has the call and all I have indicated is that I will listen carefully to her response. In no way have I indicated that I believe that she has not been anything but within the standing orders.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a point of order: I would ask that the Leader of the Opposition be directed under standing order 64(a) to refer to the Prime Minister by her title.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All members should refer to other members by their parliamentary titles.

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

On these important questions of national interest, and in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, the Leader of the Opposition has received a briefing from the secretary of the department of immigration and others. That briefing has made clear to him their advice, and their advice is that, out of the options that government has at its disposal, Malaysia is the option with the maximum deterrence effect. I understand that on this question of national interest the Leader of the Opposition may well come to a different view. That is a matter for him. Executive government—this government—is determined to implement the Malaysia arrangement and to start a processing centre in accordance with our understandings with the government of PNG. I do not ask the Leader of the Opposition to endorse that. I do not ask him to stop criticising it. I do not ask him to do anything in relation to that other than what he has done for many weeks now, which is to indicate that he does not believe in it, does not support it, does not agree with it and is full of criticisms of it. He should continue to do that if that is what he has come to in his mind as the best decision in all good conscience.

What I am asking of the Leader of the Opposition is that, when amendments to the Migration Act come before this parliament—which this executive government does require in order to implement the arrangement with Malaysia and the centre in PNG, and which an alternative government, were one ever elected which had the Nauru proposal as its policy, would need to implement that policy to put it beyond legal doubt and to make modifications in relation to unaccompanied minors—he support that legislation. Behind all of this partisanship is one central fact: the government believes in and wants to implement offshore arrangements in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The Leader of the Opposition wants to implement offshore arrangements in relation to asylum seekers. In order to do so in a way which is beyond legal doubt the Migration Act needs amending, so in the national interest I believe we should be able to agree on that.