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

It's actually a very, very sad day for this chamber today, because the No. 1 priority of any government is to keep the Australian community safe, and yet we have seen, time after time, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs fail, through his actions, to do that, and we've seen, time and time again, through the answers to the questions that we have put to him, his failure to take any responsibility whatsoever for keeping the Australian community safe.

If you google 'Ministerial direction 99'—just google it on your phone—what you will see is that, on 23 January last year, the minister for immigration signed a direction, and this is what the direction said: that the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia will become a primary consideration for the AAT when they are considering the cancellation of a visa. Did we hear that from the minister for immigration today? No, we did not. That change was made on 23 January last year. Before then, that direction was not there. A tribunal did not have to take into account the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia as a primary consideration.

What has the minister for immigration done since this debacle came to light? He's been hiding, like he normally does. Has he fronted up and owned his decision? Has he ever fronted up and owned one of his decisions? Where is he now? Has anyone seen him out in the media? Has anyone seen him at the dispatch box? He hides, he hides and he hides. And he hides—we've seen it—behind things. He hid behind the High Court when 153 hardened criminals got released into the community. 'It had nothing to do with me,' he said. And than what happened? He gave us a commitment that they would be monitored, that they would wear ankle bracelets. What happened to that? We found out a month ago that nearly 50 per cent of those 153 hardened criminals aren't wearing ankle bracelets and are not being constantly monitored, yet that assurance was given right there in that seat.

Now what do we find out from this ministerial direction? I've got to say I find these examples very hard to talk about. On Saturday we read in the paper about a New Zealand citizen who had come to our nation, come on a visa, and what he had done was rape his stepdaughter while his partner was giving birth to their child. I don't think you could get a much more heinous crime than that. That that individual wasn't deported from this nation beggars belief, and that the minister will not own that beggars belief. He had two options. He could have acted himself, as the minister, and cancelled the visa on the spot. In another instance, one that was also available to him, he could have appealed it to the Federal Court. Do you think he did either of those options? He didn't. So now we are faced with this individual here in our community, staying as a direct result of the failure of this minister to act.

The minister has tried to hide behind the AAT. But I'll give you just one example. This is about individual CHCY:

… Rape—domestic violence offence and Indecent treatment of children under 16lineal descendant/guardian/carer…

That is what the tribunal said. It went on:

The Tribunal finds CHCY has lived for the majority of his life in Australia working full time, making a contribution to the taxation system, the community and his family. The Tribunal places weight on this consideration noting the Direction clearly articulates tolerance should be given to non-citizens in CHCY's circumstances:

I don't think you could get a more direct example of the tribunal saying that that person stayed in this country because of the direction that the minister gave. It is as clear as day.

Do you know what we heard over the weekend, Deputy Speaker? We heard the Prime Minister say: 'No, it's the responsibility of the AAT, and one of the members of the AAT was appointed by the coalition. That's where the fault lies.' That's what the Prime Minister said. He tried to blame a judicial body. But then it came out—and we haven't heard from the Prime Minister since then—that the former Speaker, Anna Burke, sat on the tribunal and said that she had to take account of ministerial direction 99. So that put paid to all that. They couldn't use that anymore because Anna Burke, someone who has sat in this House, actually pointed to it. Have we heard the Prime Minister come into this place and apologise? Have we heard Minister Giles apologise? I think today there were five or six questions to him just seeking a simple apology, just wanting him to admit: 'You know what? I got this wrong and I apologise.'

We haven't yet got to the really sad situation where one individual who was released into the Australian community and not deported has allegedly—I say allegedly—committed a murder. Now, that shows you that, when you fiddle with these things, where you've got a government that thinks that it can change the law without consequences, this is the sad reality of what can happen in the Australian community. People are losing their lives, allegedly because of the actions of one of the people who should have been deported but, because of that ministerial direction, it would seem, were not.

I want to finish up by again highlighting that that ministerial direction, when you Google it, has the minister's blue-pen signature. That direction says that the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia should be a primary consideration for the AAT when they are considering the cancellation of visas.

Now, what will we do if we win the next election? We will rescind that direction and we will make sure that every single one of those individuals is deported. We will deport these people, and I would love to hear from the Minister for Education, if he's up next, an admission that the government has got this wrong—admit right here and now that you will start deporting these people. They came here as non-citizens. They did not abide by Australian law. They committed the most heinous crimes and they have no place in our community.

See this speech in context