Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of evidence given in Senate estimates that there is a backlog of over 19,000 people waiting to have their asylum claims processed, having arrived after 14 August last year. Does the Prime Minister believe that the cutting of funding to our security agencies will speed up or slow down the processing of these claims?

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

To everybody in the parliament now and to everybody listening to this broadcast, it is absolutely apparent to all what the opposition are trying to do. If you say a falsehood often enough, they hope that you confuse people and get them to believe that it is the truth.

We have seen this tactic from the opposition before, when they have raised fear about other things and then the Leader of the Opposition has ended up looking idiotic as a result.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously, it is about relevance. We need the question to be answered.

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

I was addressing that section of the question that falsely claimed that there had been cuts. I have given the parliament the figures on more than one occasion today. The opposition of course came in with their strategy—no work done, too hard for them. 'Get out the budget.' 'Oh, it makes my head hurt.' So what do they do? They just come in with a false claim and, despite the facts having been laid out in front of them time and time again in question time, they lack the intellect or the wit to change the strategy. Or they are hoping that if they go through falsehoods time after time after time, then they might get someone to believe those falsehoods. So my first answer to the member is that the claim made in her question is false and, if she wants to be honest with people, she should not repeat it.

Then on the second part of her question, the member opposite ought to have heard of an expert panel, involving Angus Houston, Paris Aristotle and Michael L'Estrange. She ought to have heard of that. She ought to have heard of their 22 recommendations, which the government accepted in full. She ought to have heard that one of those recommendations was that we made sure there was no advantage by getting on a boat and, consequently, as a result of making sure that there is no advantage to getting on a boat we do not want to see people getting protection outcomes more quickly than if they had stayed where they were and were processed where they were.

That explains what the member went to in her question. I believe that you should not be put in an advantage position because you got on a boat. Maybe the member does not agree with me on that. That is a legitimate debate, but that is what is informing the government's policy, guided by experts, whose recommendations we have accepted in full.