Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General: Will the Attorney-General update the House on how the government is supporting a strong justice system through strong and consistent border protection policies? How would other approaches impact Australia's ability to scrutinise transferees from Nauru for criminal justice and national security purposes?

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

I thank the member for his question. Yesterday we noted reporting of a person on Manus Island who is charged with four counts of sexual penetration of a minor against the PNG Summary Offences Act and the crimes against children act. Today we've informed the House of an individual currently in regional processing who has been charged with assaulting a medical officer, who has a history of violence and who is also alleged to have been charged with murder in another country.

We have informed the House that the Labor changes, the Labor laws, now mean that the minister has no discretion to refuse the transfer of individuals such as those two that we've mentioned. But perhaps an even more fundamental problem relates to the types of assessments that actually allow our agencies to unearth information of that kind. Whether it is trying to find whether someone has behaved in a previously unlawful way or whether or not they may be a security risk, that is a resource-intensive process that takes an enormous amount of time.

Another very fundamental difference that has now emerged because of the Labor laws rammed through this parliament on Tuesday night is that previously the minister and the Department of Home Affairs controlled the timing of medical transfers. Home Affairs now faces the task of assessing up to 1,000 cases of people in a time frame that is effectively determined by a very small group of doctors. We reasonably believe that we will be forced with a flood of about 300 immediate Labor transfer cases.

Now, assessing someone, as the minister for immigration has noted, of uncertain origin, as to whether or not they have engaged in criminality or whether or not they pose a security risk to the Australian people, is a difficult, resource-intensive process that takes time. A case in the High Court yesterday demonstrated this very clearly—the case of M47. It was about an individual who arrived in Australia in 2010. They have been an unlawful noncitizen since then. They variously claimed to be a citizen of West Sahara, Algeria, Spanish Canary Islands and to be stateless. That person used various false passports indicating citizenship of Gaza, Israel, Iraq. Nine years later, we still do not know the country of origin of that person. We still don't know that after nine years worth of investigation.

This House needs to understand, as do the Australian people, how long it is that Labor's laws now give ASIO to assess those 300, those 1,000 cases, as to whether they might present a security risk to the Australian people. And how long is that time frame? It is 72 hours. We are staring down the potential to have up to 300 requirements to assess 300 individuals for their potential security risk, at once, in a 72-hour period—because of your changes to the law.