Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister please tell the House what the government's policy will be to deter people smugglers once the 800-person ceiling of her Malaysian people swap deal has been reached? In other words, Prime Minister, what is plan B?

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

I thank the member for his question; I have answered it on a number of other occasions. The member may want to speak to the Leader of the Opposition about the briefing that the Leader of the Opposition received from the experts who advise government—the very same experts who advised the Howard government. He may want to ask the Leader of the Opposition to explain to him that, in the briefing the Leader of the Opposition received, the experts explained that they expect the deterrence effect of Malaysia to be so strong that we would not reach the 800. That was the expert advice provided to government and to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very simple question: what is plan B if that 800 is reached?

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

The member for Forde will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

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

I know the facts do not suit the opposition in this debate, but let's deal with the facts. The former minister for immigration in the Howard government, Mr Ruddock, interjected before, and I respond to that interjection: I am talking about expert advice from the same people whose advice he relied on when he was minister. The advice that they are providing is very clear: they expect the deterrence effect of Malaysia to be so strong that we will not reach the 800.

Can I say to the member who asked the question: when he consults with the Leader of the Opposition and gets the fact that he got that advice from the experts—the same experts who advised the Howard government—he may also ask the Leader of the Opposition what plan B is when Nauru is full, if that is what he believes is the right policy.

At the end of the day, this debate about the Malaysia arrangement and Nauru is not the debate that will come before the parliament. If the member genuinely believes that Nauru is the best solution, the best policy for refugees and asylum seekers, then he should come into this parliament and vote for the government's legislation, because it would give a future government—

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

Mr Speaker—

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

No, the member for Sturt has to resume his place. There has already been a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, it is a different point of order.

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

I would be very surprised, and I caution the member for Sturt.

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

I realise the point of order on direct relevance has been taken and you ruled that the Prime Minister knew her responsibilities to remain relevant to the question—

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

I think you are putting words in my mouth.

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

My point to you now is that she is defying your ruling.

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

No. I will decide. There is no point of order. Again I remind those who wish to come to the dispatch box with points of order that they can be considered as disorderly interruptions.

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

In answer to the member's question about the 800—I have provided that answer—can I say to the member: the thing he will be required to vote on is whether government should have the power to implement the offshore processing plan that it believes to be best. That is what the member will be voting on. I would say to the member that, if he believes that government in this country should have the ability to process asylum seekers in an offshore location, then he should vote for that. What he should certainly not do is put himself on a destructive path of wrecking the ability of this nation to have asylum seekers processed offshore. He should not do that. It is not in the national interest to do so.