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

My question is to the Minister for Immigration. Iranian national YVBM's visa was cancelled following domestic violence convictions, including for kicking his pregnant partner and threatening to 'hurt her so badly that she will not be able to walk again'. The Albanese Labor government's watering down of the law has allowed this criminal to stay in Australia, making our country less safe. When will the Albanese Labor government apologise for this catastrophic mistake and revoke direction 99?

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is rule No. 100(d)(i) which says, 'Questions must not contain statements of fact unless they are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible'. The opposition all week has provided us with unnecessary details of the country of origin and the alleged crimes of people.

Opposition members interjecting—

The parliament does not need to hear the details of the alleged or prosecuted crimes of these individuals in posing these questions. It's unparliamentary and it's dog whistling.

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

I just want to raise a further point of order, because it has to be raised immediately. Particularly when members of the crossbench raise points of order, there is a level of aggression and shouting led by the Leader of the Opposition.

Opposition members interjecting—

It's quite different to what I just got then. The level of aggro that gets applied to members of the crossbench and the level of direct anger and aggression from the Leader of the Opposition are just out of control every time there's a point of order from the crossbench. They have a right to raise these points of order without that sort of aggression.

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

I get the picture; resume your seat. I want to be very clear with everyone. When someone is entitled to a point of order—whether it be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the House—they're going to be heard in silence. It's not a commentary time, because that's the way question time and the standing order should operate. Moving forward, I've been pretty lenient in allowing points of order and enabling them to be heard, but if the interjections continue, people will not remain here for question time.

The member has raised her point of order, and I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

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

To the point of order, Mr Speaker: firstly, every one of these fact situations certainly can be authenticated, because they are taken from decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Are they strictly necessary to make the question intelligible? Absolutely they are. In each case, we have seen appalling acts of violence, and this absolutely goes to the public policy question which needs to be determined here.

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

I'll deal with the point of order that was raised by the honourable member for Kooyong with respect to standing order 100(d)(i). This question didn't name anyone. It had a reference in it. So it is different to the others. I appreciate the point that you're making about when names are issued, but there has been a long practice in the House, whether it be with owners of businesses, whether it be with community representatives—it's up to the member to make sure they are accurate and verified. So the question will stand. In this particular case, he didn't mention anyone's name. I'll just ask the minister to answer the question.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question. The government continues to cancel visas on character grounds, as appears to have been the case here, and I continue to cancel visas from AAT set-asides where appropriate. As I outlined, and as the Prime Minister articulated in the answer to the first question, we are issuing a new ministerial direction that is revised, and that will be focused on—

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

Speaker—

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

The minister is about 15 seconds in, so it would be very difficult to take a point of order on relevance, when he is talking about the decision that he was asked about. Once you take a point of order on relevance—it's only once, under the standing order—the minister will be able to respond without interruption. But on the point of order?

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

Speaker, the question said, 'When will they revoke ministerial direction 99?'

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

Resume your seat. I just remind the member for Wannon to state the point of order, which is obviously about relevance. But he needs to state that each time he takes a point of order. As I said, it's been 15 seconds. I don't know if he's going to answer for the remainder, but that point of order on relevance has been taken now, so the minister is going to be heard in silence for the remainder of the answer.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, this new, revised direction will ensure that the two principles that have always been at the heart of visa management—protection of the community and common-sense decision-making—will take place at the AAT and the new ART. It will ensure that community protection outweighs other considerations. Particularly going to the case that the member referred to, we will strengthen the principles of community safety, including the impact on victims and their families, and strengthen the family violence provisions.