Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:13): To the Leader of the Opposition's question I say that, as usual, he has missed the point. The point before this parliament today, and what the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer as a test of leadership, is whether he will join with the government in amending the Migration Act so that the government can pursue its determined arrangement with Malaysia to transfer asylum seekers. That is the question before the parliament today. Coming into the parliament today, I did expect to see these kinds of tactics from the opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition has to face up to a test—whether or not he is just full of slogans and sound bites or whether he will take seriously questions of Australia's national security. That is the key question after the High Court case: whether or not the Leader of the Opposition will pursue a strategy to wreck in his political interest or whether he will seek to work in the national interest. That is before the parliament for consideration and something the Leader of the Opposition needs to answer. On the question of refugee signatory countries, as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, the government has entered into an arrangement with Malaysia. And in entering into that arrangement we have negotiated— Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: on three occasions in this answer the Prime Minister has tried to redefine the question she was asked. It was a very straightforward question: does she stand by the commitment she made before the last election not to send boat people to any other country that had not signed the refugee convention? That is the question that the whole parliament and the country wants an answer to. The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister must directly relate her response to the question. Ms GILLARD: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In direct answer to the question: as the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, the government has negotiated an arrangement with Malaysia where the refugee convention obligations this nation has freely assumed will be honoured in respect of the people that we transfer. This is the arrangement, which we have the most clear advice from experts within the Public Service, that will act as the clearest possible deterrent for people smugglers. I say to the Leader of the Opposition who asked this question: I detect hypocrisy here. This is the Leader of the Opposition who, during the election campaign, said his policy, if he were Prime Minister, would be a 'boat phone'—that is, he would make calls to patrol boats as he sat at the Lodge or Kirribilli requiring them to turn boats around. He knew that was not possible, but he was pretending to the Australian people that he would tow those boats back to Indonesia, which is not signatory to the refugee convention. As to the outcome for the people on those boats, he was never going to worry himself about that. So the Leader of the Opposition in the last election campaign marketed a sham policy behind a three-word slogan. If he had been able to implement it, it would have taken asylum seekers to a non-refugee convention signatory country with no protections. The issue now, post the High Court case, is: will the Leader of the Opposition finally deal with the facts of this policy debate and will he ensure, by working with the government to amend the Migration Act, that the government of the day can make the decisions it needs to make to have asylum seekers processed offshore or will he just go on wrecking? This is the test for the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Randall interjecting— Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask that the member for Canning withdraw his interjections. The SPEAKER: Order! I am unaware of what the member for Canning has said, but usually when somebody has risen to their feet with an objection, it is an indication to me that something may have been said that deserves withdrawal, and it may assist the House if the member for Canning withdraws. Mr Randall: I withdraw.