Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

My first series of questions go to the Minister for Home Affairs, so I'm thankful that she's in the chamber today. Will the home affairs minister confirm whether it's government policy to amend the ASIO Act or any other provisions, any other laws, to remove the government's power to seek compulsory questioning warrants for juveniles? Secondly, has the home affairs minister met with the Director-General of Security to discuss the removal of this power, and, if so, when did they meet? Thirdly, did the home affairs minister suggest to the Director-General of Security that these powers were no longer required?

My next series of questions go to the immigration minister. We've all heard so much about direction 99. I'm not sure that, since section 44 of the Constitution, we've heard so much about a particular provision. But we are all familiar with it now. We know that, on 23 January 2023, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs signed into existence ministerial direction 99, which provided new guidance when considering visas cancelled under the character test of the Migration Act.

How did this come about? We all know that it came about because certain discussions were held between the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

New Zealand is a good friend to Australia, but one thing they did not like was the coalition's policy that if you are a noncitizen of Australia and you break the law, then you will be deported. Well, that's how it used to be, when the coalition was in government: you would be deported.

As we all know, there are a lot of Kiwis who live in Australia, so New Zealand is perhaps disproportionately affected by those provisions. I'm not suggesting that New Zealanders are in any way more recidivist or prone to crime than any other group of individuals. But the reality is: we have a lot of New Zealand citizens in Australia, and the law of maths will say that they will fall foul of the law more than anyone else.

So, under the coalition, we unashamedly made it so that if you broke the law and it was a serious offence then you would be deported. Jacinda Ardern had discussions with the Australian Prime Minister. Clearly, New Zealand did not like this law. They didn't like it when we were in government, but they thought that they would get a better response—and they did. Clearly, they did, because this prime minister caved. We all heard and saw Minister Giles throw himself on top of the grenade in parliament, in question time a couple of days ago—it may even have been Monday—where he said, 'It was all my idea,' but, clearly, he would have been acting on instructions from the Prime Minister.

Whether the minister drafted this direction 99 or whether it came from above, it doesn't really matter. The reality is that the immigration minister is responsible. Once upon a time we used to have this concept in our parliamentary democracy called ministerial accountability. Do you remember that? Ministerial accountability means the minister is responsible for his or her department. That's our Westminster system. These days, under this mob, no-one seems to care about ministerial accountability. This minister continues to blame everybody, everything; he continues to throw his department under the bus. 'It wasn't me.' 'The dog ate my homework.' At some stage, the music is going to stop. At some stage you would think that this minister would say, 'I have brought my government into such disrepute I'm going to fall on my sword and resign.' If he doesn't resign then he should be sacked. My question is: how many appeals has the minister instituted in the Federal Court— (Time expired)

See this speech in context