James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Hansard source

():  If ever there was a bill that met the definition of 'a day late and a dollar short', then it's this bill. This is a bill that could and should have been introduced to the Senate last week. This is a bill which should seek to do far more than it does seek to do. The High Court handed down its decision on Wednesday of last week. It's very clear that from that moment onwards the visa conditions imposed on the now 84 criminal non-citizens released into the community were not binding—that is, those conditions that the government said were mandatory and would protect Australians from the danger posed by people who among other things have not just been accused of and charged for but in many cases been convicted of serious violent and sexual offences. These offences include murder, rape and child sex abuse.

From the moment that the High Court handed down its determination on Wednesday afternoon it was clear those visa conditions were non-binding, so, when the government started to release these people into the community and assure us at the same time that they were being strictly controlled on mandatory and strict visit conditions, they knew that was not true. They knew that the only consequence for breaching any of those visa conditions was detention pending removal. They also knew that the High Court had just ruled that detention pending removal was not applicable to this cohort of non-citizens because there was no reasonable prospect that they could be removed and therefore their detention was deemed to be indefinite. From that moment the government should have done what it is seeking to do in this bill. It should have introduced criminal penalties for the breaching of visa conditions, so that at the very least the government would have some recourse if these people did not abide by the conditions that were imposed upon them.

They are now belatedly doing that. But it is worse than that, colleagues. It is worse than their failure not to be ready after the High Court's ruling because in June Justice Gleeson in a preliminary hearing in this case made very clear where the court was going. She made very clear how the court was going to rule, and that was a warning in red lights to the government, 'Lookout, watch out, we are going to rule that your indefinite detention is unconstitutional.' That means there is no excuse for the government not to have been ready last week. There is no excuse for them not having had a bill in draft form that could have been quickly signed off and introduced while the Senate was meeting. It could have passed the Senate on Thursday. It could have been introduced to and passed by the House of Representatives on Monday. At least then those visa conditions would have been binding and enforceable with the power of criminal law. Instead, we have had 84 people in the community for a week unrestricted with no meaningful ability to enforce those provisions.

That's why this bill is a day late—a week late, really. The reason that it's a dollar short is that, actually, what protection does it offer the Australian people? What protection does it offer them from people who have been duly tried and convicted of serious crimes, including murder, rape and child sex offences? Nothing really because during the daylight hours in the working day these people have completely unrestricted movement in the community. There is nothing to stop them from going to schools. There is nothing to stop them from going to shopping centres. There is nothing to stop them from working. There's nothing stop them from reoffending, including against those victims they originally transgressed against. There was a harrowing interview by Paul Carr that was published in the Guardian earlier this week. The interview was with a woman who was a victim of rape by a non-citizen who was jailed for that crime and then placed into indefinite detention after his sentence expired. That woman was told by police not to worry. She was told, 'He will never, ever be released into the community, so you will be safe.' As she told Paul Carr in the Guardian, when she learned last week from the police that in fact the assurances they had given her were not true, that this man had been released and was out in the community, she felt immediately fearful for her own safety and retraumatised by the crime that happened against her. She said, 'It seems like the government has no plan,' and she was right. The government didn't have a plan and still has no plan to meaningfully protect her from her rapist who is now free to move about the community, and that's putting her safety at risk.