Ms LEY (2:43 PM) —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the new fast-track access policy for asylum seekers—

Ms Gillard interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Prime Minister! The member for Farrer has the call.

Ms LEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the new fast-track access policy for asylum seekers offered to the 78 asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking and specifically to the promise of assistance with housing. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether this housing will be supplied from existing public housing and whether the asylum seekers will be fast-tracked ahead of other Australians already on public housing waiting lists?

Mr RUDD (Prime Minister) —We had a question from the left before and I think we are back to a question from the right this time. Of course, there is one fundamental logical flaw in the question, and the fundamental logical flaw is this.

Mr Laming —You’ve run out of public housing.

The SPEAKER —The member for Bowman is warned.

Mr RUDD —Ah! Coming in on cue: we have run out of public housing. I welcome the intervention. Who was it in the last 12 years who fundamentally defunded Australian government public housing in Australia? The coalition. Who was it who sat on their hands as the public housing queues in Australia went through the roof? The coalition.

Mr Swan —And who opposed the stimulus?

Mr RUDD —And who opposed the stimulus strategy which seeks now to invest in 20,000 units or thereabouts of public housing? The coalition. And those opposite say we are underfunding public housing.

Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just once will the Prime Minister stand there, look the Australian people in the eye and answer the question?

The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The point of order was on relevance. The Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Mr RUDD —The question in part went to the availability of public housing stock in Australia and it was followed by an intelligently targeted interjection by an opposition backbencher about why there was an undersupply of public housing in Australia. I am responding to both elements, including the public housing element of the question asked by the member for Farrer.

Of course, the logical flaw contained in the question is this. First of all, when it comes to any asylum seeker anywhere, there is the whole question of assessment and processing of the individual. Secondly, what happens once processing occurs is that if a person has been determined not to be a bona fide refugee in one part of the world or another they are sent back to the country from which they came. As I informed the House yesterday in terms of an arrival of a boatload of some 50 individuals back in April, two thirds of those were sent back to Sri Lanka in the course of the last week or so. That is normal process. Thirdly, in the case of the identification of those who do have bona fide refugee status, what then occurs when it comes to offshore processing in the case of Indonesia is that negotiations occur with resettlement countries, as has been the practice since time immemorial. Fourthly, consistent with the arrival of refugees in this country or any other country, the normal provision of social services applies. That is the law and that is how it has been for a long, long time.

I go back to some fundamental principles in this debate. Those opposite have refused to take a policy on this throughout the entire debate. Their entire agenda has been to whip up fear and concern in the Australian community. They are being all fear and no solutions. Furthermore, here we are in this week of a critical debate on climate change, and not a single question on climate change. Not a single question on the economy. Not a single question on health or education. They are only interested in whipping up a fear campaign on the question of asylum seekers—the Liberal Party we have known for a long, long time.

From day one, those on this boat sought to demand that they come to Australia for processing and from day one this government’s resolve has been clear—that they should be processed in Indonesia. And that is what is happening.