Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the government's plan to protect Australia's borders from unauthorised boat arrivals once the Malaysia people-swap deal reaches its 800-person limit?

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The question has been asked. The Prime Minister now has the call.

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

(Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:01): To the member who asked the question: I answered this question on a number of occasions last week. We have designed the arrangement with Malaysia because we have been advised it has the maximum deterrence effect; that is, it sends a very clear message to people smugglers and to the people that are preyed on by people smugglers that they can spend all of their money—their money gets taken away by a people smuggler—and they do not end up in Australia being processed for resettlement in Australia. We have the clearest possible advice that this sends the strongest deterrence message possible. So in designing—

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The Prime Minister was asked about the government's policy once the 800-person ceiling limit is reached—in other words, what is plan B? She was not asked a question about the Malaysia policy before—

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

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. If he wants to add to questions, he should have them in the original question. Back to the question: the Prime Minister knows the requirement for her to respond in a directly relevant manner to the question. She has the call. She should be heard in silence.

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

In designing this arrangement with Malaysia, relying on the best possible advice, we have accepted the advice that it is the strongest possible deterrence message. In being the strongest possible deterrence message our aim is that we send such a strong signal to people smugglers, effectively smashing their business model, that we do not see all of the 800 spots used because transfers send that very strong message—that if you spend your money, risk your life, you do not end up where you wanted to go. Consequently, that is the advice that has informed Malaysia, that is the policy that has informed the arrangement with Malaysia. But I say again to those opposite, I understand that they will continue to criticise the arrangement with Malaysia and in this House of parliament obviously people will come and put all different sorts of views on public policy questions. That is understood. We will in this parliament, though, be debating a different question. That different question is whether or not executive government should have the power to process asylum seekers offshore or whether all of that should be put at risk.

We believe that we should amend the Migration Act so that we can do that processing offshore. I also believe that with the new amendments I have supplied to the Leader of the Opposition today the eyes of the Australian community are upon us; that Australians in dealing with these new amendments want to see us go beyond politics as usual. Australians want us to resolve this issue and put it behind us. Australians want us to find the common ground necessary to get this done.