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

My question is to the Prime Minister. In a Home Affairs brief to the immigration minister dated 8 August 2022, it states:

At the recent Australia New Zealand Leaders' meeting, the Prime Minister committed to a "common sense approach" to the removal of New Zealand citizens long-term resident in Australia.

Is this brief accurate?

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The Leader of the House, the Minister for Home Affairs and members on my left and right will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me get this right about the question. It's a question about a brief from one minister—not from my department but from another department—to a minister of which I wasn't a party to either. So it's not from me or to me, and I obviously haven't seen the brief.

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

A point of order—

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

The Prime Minister is talking about the brief that you asked him about. You asked him about—

Member for Wannon, you mightn't like the answer he's giving. I understand that. But, if he's referring directly to the brief that he was asked about in the question, by any definition that is being directly relevant. I don't know what he's about to say about the brief. I'm going to give you the call.

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

The question was: is the brief accurate? That was the question.

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

Resume your seat. That's the question, and, as I was explaining to the member for Wannon, the Prime Minister was talking about the brief just as you interrupted him. If he goes on to another subject or topic now, he's got to be directly relevant, but we won't be able to circle back and say, 'He's not answering the question,' because we've already taken the point of order, and you can only take one point of order. It was probably the wrong time to take the point of order, but he's entitled to do that at any time. The Prime Minister has got to remain directly relevant. He's talking about the brief. I'm going to listen carefully to make sure he's being directly relevant to the part of the question he was asked.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asked about a brief that I haven't seen, that wasn't from me, that wasn't to me, so I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it.

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

Order! The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Moreton then left the chamber.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There is far too much noise. The member for Bruce is also warned. The Prime Minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I do know is that the AAT did decide that a 45-year-old New Zealand man, convicted of three charges of an indecent act with a child under 16, should be allowed to stay in Australia. The decision was made in accordance with ministerial direction No. 79, which was issued by the Leader of the Opposition's junior minister, the member for Banks—

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should resign then!

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

The Minister for Home Affairs!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and which directed decision-makers to apply the principle that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal conduct in relation to a noncitizen who had lived in Australia for most of their life.