Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We all know that last week the High Court made a ruling that people who were in indefinite detention be released—that they could no longer be detained. And, of course, on this side our focus is on managing this mandatory decision and on community safety. So Minister Clare O'Neil has set the strictest possible visa conditions for this group of people. The Australian Federal Police have briefed, in person, each state, federal and territory commissioner to ensure that they're aware of what is happening in the process.

I would like to add that, although those opposite come in to play politics with this issue, the government did argue that these people continue to be kept in detention. What those on the other side don't seem to realise is that we have to follow the rule of law. We know that many on the other side—in fact, a huge number of people on the other side—obviously don't believe in following the rule of law, and we know that because of how they behaved through the robodebt issue. But we had to release those people. We argued against the outcome in the High Court, but the High Court last week issued a writ telling the government they had to release these people, so these people have been released. They've been put on bridging visas with, as I understand, the strictest of conditions.

The High Court still has yet to release its full judgement, so I would remind people that, within this judgement, the High Court has actually overturned a 20-year precedent. When those opposite were in government, they didn't have to ever worry about what might happen if the High Court were to determine that these people had to be released, but we do. We were already working towards that and were prepared for it, as it might well be a result. Our minister worked diligently with the Australian Border Force and the Australian Federal Police to establish that, if and when it did happen that we were ordered to release them, those people who've been released would be moved into state and territory post-offending programs where appropriate. I also understand that each offender is being case monitored. So, as I've stated, these people are being released under very strict conditions, and those conditions include regular reporting to authorities; reporting their personal details, including any social media profiles, which, of course, are being actively monitored; and restrictions to the type of employment that they can undertake. As I said, this is on top of any reporting orders imposed by state, territory or federal law enforcement agencies.

This government has been really proactive with regard to informing law enforcement about people being released, as I said, so that territories and states can ensure that they keep their communities safe. The government is looking at legislative and regulatory options to ensure safety in the community. But we cannot and should not ever ignore the decision of the High Court, and that's why we've had to act. Those on the other side have asked questions this week as though we had an option to act or not act. Well, we don't. It's mandatory. If the High Court make a decision, it's mandatory for the government to act.

Today we heard concerns about the President of the Human Rights Commission. Well, when I last looked, the President of the Human Rights Commission was an independent officer, and I think that the current President of the Human Rights Commission was actually appointed under the former government. I remember when there were issues with a previous president of the Human Rights Commission and people wanting to make sure that person was no longer in the job, so I'm pretty sure that the President of the Human Rights Commission was appointed under the former government. Of course, as I said, it's an independent office, so there's a separation of powers that we have in this country, and those opposite know all this.

As I've said, we argued against the decision, but we're bound to follow it, and those opposite need to remember that. Only earlier this week, I heard Senator Duniam complaining that we weren't talking about cost of living, and it was not on just one occasion but on numerous occasions that I heard Senator Duniam say that, while they were voting with the Greens against the sea dumping legislation. Three out of four questions today were on this matter. In fact, none of the questions today were about cost of living.