Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill, which was introduced to the House earlier today and adjourned for debate for a later hour this day. With respect to that bill, I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for Members speaking being five minutes; and

(2) the second reading debate continuing for no longer than one hour, after which the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

The minister has already, in the second reading speech, made the case for why this is urgent, and this resolution gives effect to that.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move, as an amendment to the motion:

That all words in paragraph (1) after "immediately" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"with the time limit for the first Opposition speaker being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes".

I indicate the opposition's position in relation to this contingent notice of motion, this suspension of standing orders. The opposition's position is that we will be voting against this suspension of standing orders, although we have moved this amendment against the outcome that, despite the position we take, the government uses its numbers to get the suspension through.

I want to take a moment to explain to the House why the opposition is opposing this suspension of standing orders. I want to be absolutely clear: this is not because the opposition is not absolutely firmly and passionately committed to every necessary act to keep Australians safe and to protect our borders.

This is an absolutely core priority of the opposition, of the coalition, of the Liberal Party and the National Party, and this has been our relentless focus over many years—the Howard government years and of course the years that we were in government from 2013 to 2022, under successive prime ministers. There is no greater commitment that the opposition has to keeping Australians safe and to ensuring that our borders are protected.

So, the issue here is not whether the opposition is prepared to engage, in good faith, with the government on the bill that was introduced by the minister at the table just around 2½ hours ago and about which the opposition was first provided with a briefing at 8 am this morning. The issue is not whether we are prepared to engage in good faith. Of course we are prepared to engage in good faith, and you need only look at the way that we engaged on these issues in the last sitting week, where we facilitated the passage of a bill through the House and the Senate which then came back to the House. Indeed, we did more than facilitate it; we greatly strengthened it, because it was a pretty desperate and inadequate job that was done by the government, after telling us for several days after the release of what was initially, I think, 81 dangerous criminals—and the number went up every day, every day—throughout that last sitting week, 'Oh well, nothing we can do; legislation is not an option.'

When the government changed its position, on the Wednesday of the last sitting week, and it got to work on some legislation—it's just bizarre that it hadn't been a contingency plan, but they got to work on it that night, it would seem, and public servants were forced to work through the night—the opposition was briefed the next morning, and we moved very quickly. We did more than facilitate; we greatly improved. That is because of the deep experience of the Leader of the Opposition—an experienced and effective Minister for Home Affairs as well as a defence minister—and of other senior coalition figures, including, I might say, the member for Wannon, a distinguished and senior although youthful-looking senior coalition parliamentarian. The experience with these issues from this side of the House was absolutely critical in engaging constructively and improving that legislation.

So, it is not a question of being prepared to engage constructively. We are engaging constructively. That engagement is occurring, between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister and between the shadow minister for immigration, the shadow minister for home affairs and the shadow Attorney-General and their opposite numbers. That engagement is occurring. We simply say that the particular sequencing and timing that is occurring now is something that could have been done on a cooperative basis. We will work quickly and efficiently. But the processes and procedures of this House are there for a very good reason. This House needs to be able to engage in scrutiny. We've demonstrated that we can do that quickly. Of course we stand ready to do that quickly. But there needs to be mutual respect and constructive mutual engagement.

So let me be very clear. The issue is not whether this opposition stands ready to work very quickly in the interests of the Australian people to improve deficient legislation put forward by the government, to suggest policy measures that they may not have thought of themselves—and, sadly, that appears to be a bit of a pattern in this area. We stand ready to do all of that. But it is important that there is some proper process and some appropriate respect for the role of the parliament. So, we will be voting against the suspension of standing orders, because this proposes that this debate be truncated to an hour. There are important questions to be worked through here, and the opposition of course stands ready to engage in a constructive process.

Again, I emphasise that that engagement is occurring right now. But what we have not heard from the Leader of the House is any attempt to justify to this House, to explain, why this matter needs to be dealt with in the form of a debate that lasts for an hour.

If it is a question of turning this around quickly, this side of the House, the coalition opposition, has a proven readiness and capability to do that. If that means that we are speaking till late at night or early in the morning, we have shown we are prepared to do that. But what we do question—and we will therefore be voting against it—is the particular nature of this suspension, which crunches down debate to one hour.

This opposition, the Liberal and National parties, stand ready to engage constructively on these very important issues. But there are a range of questions which we naturally need to be satisfied of on the merits of the bill that was shared with the opposition at only eight o'clock this morning and was introduced by the minister at around 20 past one today. There is a series of important and meaningful questions. We are interested to understand, for example, what arrangements are in place to ensure the appropriate powers of state and territory police so that they are able to exercise relevant powers in relation to the cohort of released detainees. The point I make is not to litigate those issues on their merits now, because that would not be appropriate. The point I make is that there is a set of important issues and questions which have become evident to the opposition on the basis of the fairly brief opportunity we have had to this point to examine the legislation which was introduced by the minister at around 1.20 this afternoon and which was first shared with the opposition at around 8 am today. I do make the point that we have had more than a week where the parliament hasn't been sitting, and it is somewhat mystifying why the government felt it was only necessary to share this legislation with the opposition at eight o'clock today.

But, nevertheless, what is most important here is the safety of Australian citizens and protecting Australia's borders. Sadly, the lights are flashing amber, at the very least, in relation to the scale of risk that we face on this front. There may be others with more expertise on this subject matter who would say that is far too generous an assessment. But the point I simply make is that we want to move quickly, but the government has not explained why it needs to crunch the debate down to one hour and why it is not committing to the ordinary scrutiny that would occur. Again, I emphasise that it is not a question of the opposition not being prepared to move rapidly. Of course we are. But we also want to bring to bear our proven expertise and the proven expertise of senior figures on this side of the House. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment that I have and that, secondly, we will be voting against the suspension of standing orders.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

The amendment is seconded.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Bradfield has moved as an amendment that certain words be omitted from the motion with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is dancing to the Liberals' tune. Labor is letting the Liberals' write anti-refugee legislation and then it is rushing it through parliament. Labor clearly learned nothing from the last week we were here. Last time we were here the Leader of the Opposition led a fear campaign based on misinformation that sought to demonise refugees, and Labor caved in. Labor caved in and let the opposition write legislation and rush it through parliament without any kind of scrutiny or consideration of the implications of it. Here we are back again a week later with more rushed legislation, some of which we hear is about fixing up errors that were made in the rush last time without giving the parliament time to scrutinise it.

We are dealing with some of the most serious issues that confront this parliament—namely, questions of liberty, how to deal with the Constitution and the relationship between this parliament and the High Court.

The High Court has said previous approaches from Labor and Liberal governments that are based on just taking people and locking them up indefinitely are unlawful—that you can't do that; that that's not the basis for an immigration system. In response, we here in this parliament should be saying, 'Let's have a sober discussion, taking the time that is necessary, about what a constitutional migration system might look like in this country.' We as the Greens would say that's one based on Australia joining other countries in the rest of the world and saying you don't have indefinite immigration detention, because locking people up forever is not a way to keep the community safe and not a way to deal with our immigration laws, and now we know it's unconstitutional. But, instead, what happened last time? The Leader of the Opposition ran a scare campaign, and Labor caved in. Labor caved in and passed legislation.

We said at the time that that is not a way to deal with these issues, and here we are back again, the very next week, dealing with one bit of legislation that might even turn into another one in the course of today or the course of this week. And we got to see the legislation this morning! This is legislation to deal with questions of what the High Court can and can't do, apparently, from our quick look at it. This is legislation to deal with the relationship between parliament and the most senior court in this country, and we're told we've got an hour to debate it. We've got less than a day to have a look at it, to go and get legal advice, to work out whether there could be unintended consequences of it—less than a day—and less than an hour to even debate it.

The Labor government may as well just be done with it and appoint the Leader of the Opposition the new home affairs minister. That's how much he is running the show. This ought to ring huge alarm bells in this country because the Leader of the Opposition has made his history and his political career out of punching down and demonising people. I remember when he said that people in my town of Melbourne were scared to go out because of African gangs—absolutely demonising, monstrous language. We know what he's done with refugees and migrants in this country. We've seen how much he's prepared to demonise them and mislead the public about what happens when people come here seeking our help, and how he's tried to turn people into second-class citizens by removing their rights.

When even the High Court says, 'No, hang on, actually there are some limits to this. There are some limits to saying you're going to start stripping away people's rights and locking them up forever,' that should be a warning to the Labor government that the previous approaches led by the Liberals are the wrong way to go. But, no, Labor rolls over and lets the Leader of the Opposition tickle its tummy and says, 'Here are the instructions for the legislation; why don't you have the drafter's phone number? Just draft the legislation yourself and come back here, and we as the Labor government will rush it through parliament without giving anyone the time to scrutinise it.'

I say this to Labor and I said this last time—they clearly haven't learnt the lesson, so I'll say it again: don't engage in a race to the bottom with the opposition; don't engage in a race to the bottom with the Leader of the Opposition, because there's nowhere he won't go. If you follow the moral compass of the opposition, you're going to find yourself at the bottom of the ocean. So, Labor, stop engaging in a race to the bottom with the coalition. Stop letting the Leader of the Opposition write your legislation. Let's have a sober debate about what a proper migration system in this country looks like and give this parliament the time to debate it—not one hour.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose both this contingent motion and indeed the amendment from the Manager of Opposition Business, both for the same reasons. The Manager of Opposition Business indicated that they had first eyes on this bill at eight o'clock this morning. Well, the crossbench had first eyes on at around 9.30. This is important legislation—so important that the government wishes to implement it urgently but not important enough that members of this place can undertake due diligence and sound scrutiny.

I oppose this contingent motion and the amendment on the grounds of good governance. This is not good governance. Each and every member of this place is elected to be a conscientious legislator, and I cannot in any way return to my community and say, 'I gave this bill conscientious scrutiny.'

I simply cannot. Since the briefing this morning, I have sought to get independent legal advice. No-one was available in this short period of time. I've sought advice from academics. They said they'd try and call me this evening. This is simply not good enough. It's simply no way to go back to the Australian people and give them confidence that what we do in this place not only stands up to the scrutiny of those of us who are sent here to vote on it but also stands up to the scrutiny of the High Court itself.

This is really disturbing. I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business. I would be happy to stay here into the evening, for as long as it takes, to give people the amount of time they require to engage in solid debate. This bill is so important; it deserves that at the very least. I can't continue to support government contingent motions that ask us to rush through legislation with the narrowest opportunity to engage with the legislation in any meaningful way. For me, it's an absolute no to this contingent motion. The Manager of Opposition Business seeks to amend the bill, which advantages the opposition by a factor of only a few more minutes for the shadow minister. It does nothing to assist anybody else in the House, so I want this recorded: I simply cannot support this.

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

I rise because we need to not agree to this motion to suspend standing orders, because there are many reasons about which we need a lot more explanation from the government before we agree to these further amendments. For instance, we have just found out that reasons will be published in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor at 2.15 pm on Tuesday 28 November 2023. So, the reasons for the High Court decision will be given tomorrow. Why we are rushing this now beggars belief. This is particularly so when we know that these amendments are being rushed. We were told to meet with the government at eight o'clock this morning. We were presented with the amendments, and we could tell that the amendments were basically finalised at 4.20 last night.

It seems that the government has just rushed this approach, and that is not the way to take national security seriously. One of the reasons they might have rushed this and tried to combine it with the citizenship cessation legislation relates to what was in the West Australian over the weekend, 'The subtle art of not giving'—an unparliamentary word—referring to a No. 1 bestseller. The article says:

Inside the chaos of Government handballing of GPS trackers as detainee criminals still roam streets without care … the Federal agency tasked with tracking killers and child sex offenders freed from immigration detention may not even have the power to do so as fallout from the High Court judgement continues. It comes as several agencies pass the buck on getting, supplying or using the GPS devices.

This just seems to be one mess after another from this government when it comes to immigration. We've heard the ministers referred to as 'hopeless and hapless'—maybe 'dumber and dumber'; I don't know. There are a lot of people who are saying a lot of things, because the way that this is being handled seriously beggars belief. And now, when the High Court will be handing down its reasons tomorrow and those reasons could allow us to legislate—and legislate in a way that keeps the community safe—the government seems to be rushing these amendments through.

Why is the focus in here? I think it's because of the politics of it. At the moment, we know that there is one detainee who is out in the community and whose location the government doesn't know. So there is one detainee out in the community, and the government does not know where they are. What has been the transparency around that? Do we know anything about their whereabouts, the efforts that are being taken or what is occurring with regard to that one person? No. But this just seems rushed, maybe because the government doesn't want to be upfront about that. We also know that there is noncompliance with three other cases which have been referred to the AFP. We don't know much about those either.

There are now 138 former detainees that have now been freed. I'd say to the Greens, 'You need to think about this again,' because I think a Senate inquiry around the decision that went into the High Court making the final decision and the government's approach to it is something that should be looked at and investigated. There are serious questions—including about what the minister for immigration signed off on, which might have led to the case failing—that need to be looked at, but I'll have more to say on that later. (Time expired)

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start by acknowledging that, as parliamentarians, our first and foremost responsibility is the safety of our communities. Following the High Court's decision that indefinite detention is unconstitutional, there is understandable concern about the potential risks to public safety from the release of some of those who were detained. I share those concerns. Some of the people in this cohort have committed serious offences in the past, including offences which are violent and sexual in nature. And so it is absolutely right that we have a serious and reasoned debate in this place about how to ensure public safety whilst adhering to the High Court judgement, which found that indefinite immigration detention is illegal. This is a complex issue, one which requires the parliament to weigh up individual liberty and community security and to find the appropriate balance. This is not an issue to politicise or rush.

Unfortunately, we did not have a serious and reasoned debate last time. We had wedge politics and fearmongering, and we had legislation rushed through in less than a day. This is not the appropriate way to determine laws that govern this country. So, given the rushed nature of the debate in this place just 11 days ago, I'm very disappointed to see the government do the same all over again. Other members of the crossbench and I were briefed on this legislation at 9.30 this morning, and yet we are being asked to debate and vote again on this bill on the very same day. We have just one hour for debate and a time limit of five minutes per speaker. The vast majority who will want to speak will not get a chance. It is not adequate. It is not a chance for debate.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired.

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House now is that the motion as amended be agreed to.