Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I rise because we need to not agree to this motion to suspend standing orders, because there are many reasons about which we need a lot more explanation from the government before we agree to these further amendments. For instance, we have just found out that reasons will be published in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor at 2.15 pm on Tuesday 28 November 2023. So, the reasons for the High Court decision will be given tomorrow. Why we are rushing this now beggars belief. This is particularly so when we know that these amendments are being rushed. We were told to meet with the government at eight o'clock this morning. We were presented with the amendments, and we could tell that the amendments were basically finalised at 4.20 last night.

It seems that the government has just rushed this approach, and that is not the way to take national security seriously. One of the reasons they might have rushed this and tried to combine it with the citizenship cessation legislation relates to what was in the West Australian over the weekend, 'The subtle art of not giving'—an unparliamentary word—referring to a No. 1 bestseller. The article says:

Inside the chaos of Government handballing of GPS trackers as detainee criminals still roam streets without care … the Federal agency tasked with tracking killers and child sex offenders freed from immigration detention may not even have the power to do so as fallout from the High Court judgement continues. It comes as several agencies pass the buck on getting, supplying or using the GPS devices.

This just seems to be one mess after another from this government when it comes to immigration. We've heard the ministers referred to as 'hopeless and hapless'—maybe 'dumber and dumber'; I don't know. There are a lot of people who are saying a lot of things, because the way that this is being handled seriously beggars belief. And now, when the High Court will be handing down its reasons tomorrow and those reasons could allow us to legislate—and legislate in a way that keeps the community safe—the government seems to be rushing these amendments through.

Why is the focus in here? I think it's because of the politics of it. At the moment, we know that there is one detainee who is out in the community and whose location the government doesn't know. So there is one detainee out in the community, and the government does not know where they are. What has been the transparency around that? Do we know anything about their whereabouts, the efforts that are being taken or what is occurring with regard to that one person? No. But this just seems rushed, maybe because the government doesn't want to be upfront about that. We also know that there is noncompliance with three other cases which have been referred to the AFP. We don't know much about those either.

There are now 138 former detainees that have now been freed. I'd say to the Greens, 'You need to think about this again,' because I think a Senate inquiry around the decision that went into the High Court making the final decision and the government's approach to it is something that should be looked at and investigated. There are serious questions—including about what the minister for immigration signed off on, which might have led to the case failing—that need to be looked at, but I'll have more to say on that later. (Time expired)

See this speech in context