Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Parramatta is a serious person with a serious intellect, but that was not a serious contribution. It was not a serious contribution for one of the most important debates this parliament has had, which is about keeping the public safe. That goes to whether the people trust this government to keep them safe. When given an opportunity to answer questions or to explain themselves, the relevant ministers engage in whataboutism. In fact, the member for Parramatta commenced his contribution by welcoming this as an opportunity to talk about the greatest hits of the opposition.

Greatest hits—that's a cute line, but it's a not a serious contribution.

In addition to blame, we've actually seen the government seek to blame the High Court. They've said they were surprised by this. It was a jack-in-the-box judgement. It was like: 'Surprise!' No-one expected it. Let's interrogate that. We had the reasons from the High Court on Tuesday 28 November, and I want to go through the relevant time line. On 7 and 8 November we had the hearing and the order. So 8 November was the date on which, the government claims, it was surprised that a 20-year precedent had been overturned. But let's go back further. On 1 September we had submissions made on this matter and on 2 June we had a special leave application.

So over the preceding months a lot of things happened—a lot of serious things by serious people who put in a lot of work on this question. They didn't do it because it was pointless or because it was going to get nowhere. They did it because they thought it had a proper and probable chance of success, and the government knew that too.

I want to note some things. In the proceedings of the special leave application and the two days of hearings, there were 99 pages of transcript. That involved 14 counsel, six of whom were silks. There were six silks and eight juniors, plus all of these solicitors. It involved the full bench of the High Court—seven High Court judges—with all of their staff and all of their resources. They were considering written submissions that went to 94 pages. I'd like to reference some of those. The plaintiff's submission, in paragraph 1, says:

The Plaintiff accepts that both propositions are contrary to Al-Kateb v Godwin. To the extent necessary, that decision should be overruled.

In paragraph 1 they were flagging what the purpose of this case was about.

Then the respondent's submission notes throughout that this very question is the question before the court. It acknowledges in paragraph 1, which the ministers would have signed off on:

Accordingly, the first issue is whether leave should be granted to re-open Al-Kateb. If that leave is granted, the second issue is the correctness of the construction …

That was the question. That was the debate before the High Court.

Then the government would have us believe that, through all of the submissions and all of the work, they were all wasting their time. All of these submissions were just put together for a pointless debating exercise. There were seven justices of the High Court, 14 counsel, six silks—some of the best in the country. We had the plaintiff and the defendant. We had the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Law Centre make submissions, and their submissions also noted that there was a serious question about Al-Kateb. But, again, the government would have us believe that they were all wasting their time.

The shadow minister made a very important point: cases are decided by facts and law. We had 14 counsel make submissions on the law, but they would have taken, on instruction, the facts. They would have had a conference. They would have sat down with the minister and the minister's adviser and the department, and they would have put in the documents 'no real prospect of being removed'. The very fact that decided this case was on instruction from the minister. So you can't say: 'This was a surprise. I wasn't ready.'

Anyone who has looked after others knows that you can hope for the best but you plan for the worst. What is clear is that there was no planning from this government and that this is on them.

See this speech in context