Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on the impact on the justice system of weakened border protection?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members opposite want to make a bit of noise because they voted 22 times in the Senate for a bill that would have radically limited the minister's discretion over transfers, even the transfers of serious criminals. We said that that was absolutely untenable. A few days ago, they produced advice that said that wasn't a problem; it wasn't a problem according to their advice. We argued that you could not have no ministerial discretion to exclude people who perpetrated murder or serious sexual assault from transfer to this country. Labor then recognised that problem, and they produced a new, but not so different, amendment last night. The new amendment still radically decreases the minister's discretion. It does not solve the problem. It only retains some discretion if the person has been sentenced for a serious criminal offence because the transfer would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.

There are very serious problems with that amendment that was pushed through this House last night. We never got the opportunity to debate those problems because they, with the help of the Greens, gagged debate on those serious issues. What was it that you did not want to talk about last night? There is no discretion for this government or our minister to stop the transfer of a person who is being investigated for, charged with, on trial for or even awaiting a sentence for a serious criminal offence. This isn't a hypothetical issue. We are well aware of the reporting of a potential transferee on Manus Island who is charged with four counts of sexual penetration of a minor under the PNG summary offences and crimes against children act. We are aware of another potential transferee who has been charged with an indecent act with a child under 16, who is detained in Nauru and yet to have their first court appearance. There is another potential transferee who is charged with the assault of a treating psychiatrist. None of those cases could result in the minister exercising the discretion to stop the transfer.

Just think about what we were prevented from debating last night. Two doctors could initiate a process, where the minister has no discretion, to bring someone to Australia who is charged with assaulting a doctor offshore to get further assessment by a doctor onshore, and we could not stop that transfer. That is absolute madness and something that we were stopped fulsomely debating last night. What a ridiculous situation that you gagged debate and rammed through such an outrageous situation where ministerial discretion is reduced over serious criminality.

If they had such a big win last night on border protection, why not a single question on it today? If it was such a magnificent evening for you, the victory that dare no speak its name—(Time expired)