Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

I can see those opposite are really enjoying these questions. The Attorney-General used powers never before exercised and has been opaque about his reasons. What warranted this action? Did Mr Collaery represent himself to the Attorney-General and make those requests? How many legal activists put pressure on the Attorney-General to make this decision? What public interest has been served by the Attorney-General's intervention here?

The second matter is in relation to the case of Montgomery v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Mr Montgomery was a New Zealand citizen residing in Australia on a visa. After being sentenced to 14 months in prison for aggravated burglary, his visa was cancelled and Mr Montgomery was detained in immigration detention. He claimed that he could not be deported as he'd been culturally adopted by an Aboriginal community, despite having no biological Aboriginal descent. The case followed a previous High Court decision, Love and Thoms, which controversially determined that an Australian who met the definition, under the Mabo case, of Aboriginality, descent, self-identification and community recognition cannot be placed in immigration detention or deported. That was a split decision, 4-3, of the High Court and the law after Love and Thoms was unclear. The Morrison government decided to bring the Montgomery case to the High Court to clarify, following the Love and Thoms decision. The court heard the arguments. It reserved its decision.

The Commonwealth had already expended finance and time bringing the case. Policymakers were looking forward to the clarification about the definition of Aboriginality for the purposes of migration law. But, before the court had delivered its decision, the government decided to revoke the cancellation of Mr Montgomery's visa and then the Attorney-General discontinued the matter. Was the Attorney-General involved in the decision to revoke the visa cancellation? Did the minister for immigration consult with the Attorney-General in making that decision? Why did the government not wait until such time as the court had delivered its decision in the Montgomery case before making a decision about his migration status, particularly given the benefit of clarifying the definition of Aboriginality for the purpose of migration law?

These two extraordinary interventions deserve an explanation, and I call on the Attorney-General to give one to the House.

See this speech in context