Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

That is a complete misrepresentation in relation to what we're asking you about. The question I asked was: how many in the cohort have committed a serious, violent or sexual crime that has a sentence of seven years of more attached to it? In other words, how many of the 147 rapists, paedophiles and murderers and the contract killer that you have let out of detention have committed a serious violent or sexual crime that has had a sentence of seven or more years attached to it as a maximum? You see, if you don't fall within the first limb, you don't even make it to the second.

That now gives me an opportunity to talk about the amendment that we will be moving for this exact reason. The amendment that we are moving is a straightforward amendment. It is about being straight with the Australian people, because, quite frankly, that is what they deserve. But, based on that last decision from the minister, there's nothing to see here. We don't even know how many of the 147 fit within the first limb of our test. I hate to tell the Australian people this, but if you're not in the first limb of the test—guess what?—you're out; the preventive detention order does not apply.

The Australian people are entitled to know who is being released into their communities. The fact of the matter is: at this point in time, we only know the tip of the iceberg. We know that the government has released paedophiles, murderers, rapists and a contract killer. Who else? Who are the serious criminals the government has decided to release? Let's be clear: every one of those released from detention was released because of a decision by this government, and the overwhelming majority were released before we had even seen the High Court's reasons. It was a knee-jerk, panicked response, and for the vast majority we don't know what they've done or why the government released them.

What is worse is that, based on the answer to my question, the minister himself doesn't know—good grief! The government doesn't know, of the 147 they've released into the community, how many are going to even make it into the first limb. The first limb is very important. I would have thought the minister, perhaps at the instruction of the Prime Minister, would have already done an assessment of the 147. How many of those 147 even meet the first-step threshold the government is putting in place? Is the answer zero? I don't know; the minister hasn't told me. Maybe the answer is zero. Is it three? Is it four? We don't know. That is the basic question we would like the government to ask in the first place.

This is an amendment, in terms of what I will have to now move, that will require the government to tell us. It is very simple. It accords with the standard the government has set for itself. This government talks a lot about openness and transparency, but, I have to say, it doesn't talk the talk, unfortunately. If the government is prepared to live by the standard it set itself, it will support the amendment the coalition is putting forward. As I said, it's very simple. Our amendment will require the minister to prepare a statement of reasons for every detainee whom they decide to release as a result of the NZYQ case; that is currently at 147. It says the minister should prepare that statement and then table it within the parliament within seven days. It's pretty simple. When Minister Giles decides to release someone, he should tell Australians why. The only thing the government has said to date is, 'Oh, it's because of the High Court and the decision in the High Court.' Seriously? Tell us how the High Court decision applies to each of the 147 that you have released.

The minister should be clear about the visa that has been granted. He should explain to the Australian people what conditions have been imposed. He should reveal their visa history. He should be upfront about the character concerns of the person who, like the 147, is currently living in the Australian community. The Australian public are entitled to know about their past convictions both here in Australia and overseas, and the minister should set out in detail the basis on which he determined there was no real prospect that the person would be removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future—which is the NZYQ case. Under our amendment we're going to help the government help the Australian people understand why they are doing what they are doing. Under our amendment we would learn whether or not the incompetence displayed by the Albanese government in the NZYQ case is a pattern of behaviour.

Let's reflect on what happened in that case. The government, as I said, made two concessions. It conceded two important facts, and that terminology—'important facts'—is not mine; it is from the High Court itself. The court put significant weight on those two important facts the government conceded on 30 May. The first concession was that NZYQ could not be removed from Australia. The second concession made by the government was that there was no real prospect of the plaintiff being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government made those concessions in May, lo and behold, even though they hadn't actually finished making inquiries about whether or not he could be resettled. One might ask: why in God's name would the government have made those concessions? The Labor government made those concessions as at 30 May. But then we get the High Court reasons, and this is what they reveal. When they realised the magnitude of their stuff-up in August, they then started making inquiries with Five Eyes partners.

Let's be clear, for the record: this is what happened under this incompetent government. They conceded that there was no way NZYQ was ever going to be removed from Australia, because no-one would take him. After making that concession, which forced the court's hand, they decided to go back and check. Maybe this case would have been entirely unnecessary. Maybe the result could have been avoided. Was this a pattern of behaviour? Did they do this in other cases? I don't know. The Australian people don't know. But I can tell you from the feedback I've been getting into my office and from reading comments online across all the newspapers, the Australian people would like to know: how many people were released without even checking if other countries would take them?

Let's see if this government can meet the commitment to transparency and openness that it loves to trumpet—a commitment, I might say, that has only ever been honoured in the breach. Australians know that in the ordinary course they will struggle to get information out of this conniving, secretive, hypocritical government. Let's hope the events of the last four weeks have made them see the error of their ways. I hope they understand how badly they have lost the trust of the Australian people.

I say again to the Australian Labor Party: we are giving you an opportunity. Once again, we are here to help you, just like we were on your last piece of legislation. We proposed six amendments, even though you said it couldn't be done, which you accepted. We are once again cleaning up your mess. We are giving you the opportunity to work with us, to make sure the people who are being asked to bear this risk—the Australian people—actually understand what and who is coming down the line. They need to know who is being released. So the question is, will the government support our very simple amendment? Or are you basically saying 'stuff you' to the Australian people? Are you saying, 'We will not tell you what we have done'? Are you saying, 'We are prepared to expose you to a risk'? In fact, given the last 48 hours, I would think it's a pretty significant risk: allegations of a serious sexual assault and then allegations in relation to a minor. But they're not prepared to tell you about the risk.

Again, I ask the minister: how many in the cohort will fit into the first limb of the test the government has set out for itself?