Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. If the government's Malaysia people swap is going to stop the boats, as the Prime Minister claims, then why is she building a 1,500-bed detention centre in Darwin?

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

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on standing order 64.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on the point of order taken by the Leader of the House, standing order 64(a) is supposed to deal with issues where people are being called by their first name or their last name or names altogether different to their electorate. It does not deal with the issues of 'he' or 'she'. That point of order was taken yesterday. It was trivial and silly then and it is trivial and silly now, and I would ask you not to uphold it.

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

This is something that I hear often, though not until now by way of point of order: a concern of this or similar ilk. I would simply invite members to look at questions in the past where—and this will get me into trouble over my English expression—the personal pronoun is used.

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—

I will be corrected, whatever. The question was directed to the Prime Minister. In the context of the reference to the Prime Minister, every time the Prime Minister is mentioned in the question I am not expecting her to be referred to by the expression of her parliamentary title. I understand people's concerns in other contexts, but in the framing of this question I could not rule it out of order on that basis.

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

I certainly respect your ruling, Mr Speaker, and I would not have expected it to be ruled out of order. I was simply making the point about respect for the office of Prime Minister.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! All I say is that points have been made; reluctantly, I allow those points by allowing points of order. I hope that that is recognised in its totality when people rise for other points of order. The question has been asked. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In answer to the member's question, first and foremost, can I say to the member, she would be aware that we have people—

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

She!

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

Order! I am trying to reduce my interventions but, please, can we get back to issues that people would expect us to be discussing, and discuss those issues in a civil manner. The Prime Minister has the call and she should be heard in silence.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am endeavouring to answer the member's question because it is a question about an important policy area, a policy area that goes to our core national interest. The answer to the member's question is as follows. The member is probably aware that we do have already in detention asylum seekers, and so we do need detention capacity for asylum seekers who are currently in Australia. The member may also be aware that we use detention capacity for more than asylum seekers who arrive unauthorised by boat. We use detention capacity for a wide variety of purposes related to immigration management, so people are detained for other reasons.

Can I say to the member as well that the question that will be introduced before the parliament next week will not be a question about whether or not she believes in the Malaysia arrangement. That is a matter for her, and she may choose on the weekend to consult her constituents about their views about national security, their views about border protection and their views about refugee and asylum seeker policy. But there will be nothing in this parliament that asks her to vote on the question of whether or not she endorses the arrangement with Malaysia. The vote in this parliament will be on amendments to the Migration Act which would enable the member, if she was a member of the government, if she ever served in a future government in the capacity of minister for immigration—

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

The Prime Minister will not further debate the question.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I actually asked about the 1,500-bed—

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

The member for Solomon will resume her seat. At the same time as the member for Solomon rose I was inviting the Prime Minister to not further debate the question. The Prime Minister has the call and I would hope that she was in conclusion.

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

I was specifically asked about detention capacity in view of the Malaysia arrangement, so I am addressing that. I am pointing out to the parliament that in relation to the Malaysia arrangement no-one will be asked to vote on that. People will be asked to vote on amendments to the Migration Act which will enable a government, including this government, to process people offshore.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is concluding. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

In conclusion, I will be asking, as I am asking now, members of the opposition to very seriously consider their position on these amendments, given the seriousness of this issue to our national interest.

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 Prime Minister based on the answer that she has just given. The arrangement between Senator Brown and the Prime Minister requires the Prime Minister to discuss and negotiate any planned legislation. Given the answer that she just given to the question that she has just had, I ask the Prime Minister: why hasn't she discussed this legislation, if it so important, with Senator Brown?

Mr Danby interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Melbourne Ports will leave the chamber for one hour under 94(a). He will consult with the member for Bowman about timing again. Before giving the call to the Minister for Health and Ageing, who I appreciate has approached the dispatch box with a point of order, can I say to some of her frontbench colleagues that I would prefer that, if they have comments about proceedings and they worry about whether they are in order, they take points of order.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am simply asking whether it is appropriate within the standing orders to ask a supplementary question which is not related to the question that was originally asked.

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

Order! I refer members to the comments I made about what I believe to be permissible in supplementary questions and, on that basis, I rule the supplementary question out of order, but I do note that a point has been made, and in other jurisdictions it probably would open the door for a supplementary. But I do not think it is consistent with those views I outlined initially regarding what I would allow for supplementaries.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Speaker, and on the ruling you have just made, I wish to clarify that because that is a departure from the standing orders—with great respect to your ruling. Standing order 101(b) says:

… allow supplementary questions to be asked to clarify an answer to a question asked during Question Time …

That is why the Leader of the Opposition couched his supplementary question in reference to the Prime Minister's answer that she has given to the member for Solomon. As a consequence, I would put it to you that it is very much in order.

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

I have ruled. I say to my learned friend again: I take on board his comments but I have set down some principles about supplementary questions and I believe that my ruling is aligned with those comments. Perhaps we should all revisit them. Again, I stress that a point was made in the point of order.