Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:18): To the Leader of the Opposition, he has misconstrued the point I was making in my last answer. He was asking me about a clause in the amendments that he has been provided with, and that clause was about assurances being gained between two countries which were not legally binding. That was his question to me. So I took his question to me to be: why would you want that in there; when would you use it? The government is seeking to use that clause with Malaysia. But I was pointing out to the Leader of the Opposition for policy consistency that it is the kind of clause that would have been necessary for the Howard government when it entered into its arrangement with Nauru had the High Court taken the same interpretation then that it takes now. When the Howard government entered into its arrangement with Nauru, Nauru was not a refugee convention signatory country. That is a fact. No shaking of anybody's head will wish that fact away. When the Howard government entered into the arrangement with Nauru, it was not a legislated arrangement in Australia or in Nauru. There was a memorandum of understanding between the two nations which spelt out obligations on each side—that is, it is a comparable situation. It was not the end point because it was for processing rather than for transfers. But, on those points, it is a comparable situation to where we are with Malaysia. It is not a refugee convention signatory country but we do have an arrangement with it which spells out obligations. That was the point of my last answer. Mr Abbott: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: my question was clearly about the Prime Minister's assertions as to the legal position regarding Nauru and I quoted to her the Solicitor-General's clear opinion on Friday— The SPEAKER: Order! A point of order on a question is not an opportunity to repeat the question. The only point of order is whether the response is directly relevant. A question that commences 'Why did you say in a previous answer' leads to the Prime Minister being able to be directly relevant on the basis of her explaining why she said something in the previous answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD: I was directing my answer to that part of the Leader of the Opposition's question which went to my previous answer. He also asked me about the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General, in written advice on the question of Nauru that we have distributed, the opposition has and is publicly available, has said further information would be needed. He also pointed to the fact that there is legal risk. If you want to put it beyond doubt then you would amend the legislation. In addition to the general circumstances about Nauru, I would direct the Leader of the Opposition's attention to the Solicitor-General's advice which deals with the complex and difficult question of unaccompanied minors. He would need to direct his attention to that as well. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: the grading he used for the Solicitor-General's opinion is not right. I would direct him to the two comprehensive pieces of legal advice which have been provided to the opposition and provided publicly.