Somewhere in the mix of the reaction to the government’s announcement about sending asylum seekers to Malaysia, the mask of the Coalition leadership on the issue slipped.

It hasn’t been noticed because when it comes to asylum seekers, the debate is now hopelessly polarised between those on the Left who see any failure to welcome all asylum seekers as evidence of corrupt, immoral inhumanity, and those on the Right who regard anything less than packing them all off “back where the came from” as softheadededness bordering on treachery.

At the core of the deal with Malaysia is the first substantial increase in our asylum seeker intake for years, up to 14,750 a year from 13,750.

Despite some claims by refugee advocates to the contrary, Australia plays a strong role in refugee resettlement compared to other western countries, especially European ones. We’re one of the biggest resettlers of refugees, along with Canada and the United States. But 13,750 is still too small for a country of our size and wealth, given the size of the international refugee problem. 14,750 is too small as well, but a decent increase, although it should be permanent, not just for the life of the agreement with Malaysia.

There’s been some peculiar criticism that the Malaysia deal with involve female and children asylum seekers. Regardless of the merits of the swap deal itself, excluding women and children would create exactly the same perverse incentive created by Temporary Protection Visas, encouraging women and children to try to reach Australia by boat, and recreating the conditions that led to the horror of Siev X.

But the opposition’s reaction was most instructive. The Coalition leadership, right back through the Howard years, has long held the stance that it is welcoming of asylum seekers, but wants to stop those who would make the dangerous journey by boat. Indeed, Abbott during last year’s election campaign said the Coalition would increase the overall asylum seeker intake by 1500, a laudable policy.

What has been the Opposition’s reaction to the smaller 1000 increase proposed by the Government? Scott Morrison was quick out of the blocks, declaring “you don’t make this problem and challenge any easier by just adding another 1,000 people a year to those you’re trying to assist”. Indeed, he linked it to his own agenda to demonise asylum seekers as welfare bludgers, telling Neil Mitchell “about 13,750 people come under that [the refugee program]. The government says they are now going to increase it by 1,000 a year. One in three have a job after five years and over 80% are still on welfare after five years.”

So what happened to the “we love asylum seekers, but want to stop boat arrivals” line?

The other leg to the Coalition response has been to claim the Prime Minister was outfoxed by the Malaysians, gulled into taking five — count ’em — refugees for every boat arrival.

“The Malaysians clearly saw her coming,” said Morrison. Avuncular NSW Liberal frontbencher Bob Baldwin took to Twitter. “You wouldn’t send Gillard in to play poker would you, one blink and she folded. Instead of 2 for one, she took the 5 for 1 deal against!” So I asked Baldwin why he thought “2 for 1” was better than “5 for 1”. After some repetition of the fact that he preferred “2 for 1” or “1 for 1” over “5 for 1”, I asked if he preferred a lower asylum seeker intake. “Correct, go to the top of the class,” he responded.

Baldwin might have realised after that technically he was criticising Coalition policy, because he tweeted me again a while later “Stopping illegal boat arrivals is paramount, Gillard’s plan won’t work!”

So what’s the Coalition’s policy on our overall asylum seeker intake? Does it support taking more asylum seekers, or fewer? The only certainty is that, as Morrison has reiterated in response to the Malaysia deal, it backs Temporary Protection Visas. The Coalition knows, along with everyone else, that TPVs not merely failed as a policy, but are associated with the deaths of women and children. If there’s confusion over how many it wants Australia to resettle, TPVs might be the best pointer to the attitude of the Coalition leadership toward asylum seekers.