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

I have a number of questions that I want to get through, but unfortunately I fear we're just going to get a lot of rhetoric from the minister yet again. I know Mr Dreyfus is out there holding a press conference now and making all sorts of excuses as to why the government has failed to act to date. He is making all sorts of excuses in relation to the release of the detainees.

I said we were going to hear a lot of rhetoric from the minister, and in his first 10-minute contribution that was proven to be true. These are obviously the Labor talking points, though, because they would appear to back in the rhetoric that the Attorney-General is currently saying to the media. Both the minister and the Attorney-General are putting this to the Australian people, and I will quote from what Mr Dreyfus is saying:

Both of the citizenship loss provisions introduced by Mr Dutton and the Coalition when in government, were struck down by the High Court.

The issue I have with that is this: Mr Dreyfus clearly has a very short memory. Perhaps the press would like to put to Mr Dreyfus: does he stand by the comments that he made when he and the Labor members of the PJCIS—and remember, as I said, the PJCIS at that time was led by the current Attorney-General. This is what they said in relation to the laws that we are discussing today, which were looked at by the PJCIS at the time, were worked on in a bipartisan manner—in other words, by both parties of government, the Australian Labor Party and the coalition—and were passed in a bipartisan manner. So, whilst Mr Dreyfus is out there saying one thing to the press, perhaps the press would like to quote back to Mr Dreyfus and ask him if he stands by the comments that he made when he was a member of the PJCIS.

In fact, it was led by him, as I said. This is what Mr Dreyfus said at the time:

Labor members welcome the move to a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation.

Has Mr Dreyfus now decided that he put the wrong comments in the PJCIS report?

They also said this:

Fortunately, the move to a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation will provide the Government with the flexibility to better manage the risk of potential adverse security outcomes (e.g. the Minister could decide not to cancel a person's citizenship where the cancellation would increase the risk the person poses to Australians overseas, or where citizenship cancellation would seriously damage Australia's international relations).

Now, again, perhaps the press would like to put to Mr Dreyfus whether or not he stands by the comments he made in his second reading speech on the citizenship cessation bill, because you see, Mr Dreyfus, when he was shadow Attorney-General, described Labor as—and again, I think the press should put this to Dreyfus, if they're still asking him questions: does he stand by the comments he made in the second reading speech on the citizenship cessation bill, when he was the shadow Attorney-General, when he described the Australian Labor Party as fully supporting the move to a ministerial discretion decision-making model? I'm getting a little concerned. Did Mr Dreyfus actually mean this at the time? Again, he was the leader of PJCIS; he backed in, in a bipartisan manner, what the High Court has now struck down. In fact, he not only backed it in—as I said, they might have to put to him: 'You expressly welcomed it. Was that not true at the time?'

You also committed the Australian Labor Party, and you said that they fully supported the move to a ministerial discretion decision-making model. Now, you did fully support it at the time, because that's what you said. So I'm going to work on the basis that, at the time, the shadow Attorney-General and the Australian Labor Party actually were true to their words. They actually did work with us in a bipartisan manner. They actually did agree to the citizenship cessation bill. They stood by the move to a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation. And I have to say: the only thing they can be doing at the moment is playing politics—playing politics, by saying that this is Peter Dutton, as the Leader of the Opposition, because, from what I can see, Mr Dreyfus, when he was the shadow Attorney-General, worked with us. This was bipartisan, as I said.

Now, the other thing I've just got to remind the chamber about is this. As I said, we're going to get rhetoric from the minister. I'd say I was disappointed, but I have to say I'd be disappointed if the minister didn't provide me with rhetoric. But the minister also made comment in relation to the NZYQ case. Again, I addressed this issue yesterday. But, unfortunately, the minister has, yet again, not actually said it as it was. So let's just have a look at what actually occurred in relation to NZYQ.

Despite what the minister has said, it's false to suggest that Mr Dutton intervened to grant NZYQ a visa—it's actually false; it doesn't matter how many times you say it, that doesn't change the fact that it's false. You can continue to say it, but it doesn't actually change the fact that it is false.

NZYQ would not be in Australia were it not for Labor's failed border protection policies. It was a terrible time in the lives of so many, because they allowed 50,000 arrivals on more than 800 boats. As I said yesterday, Labor are either playing politics with their rhetoric or they actually don't understand the immigration law, which is probably more to the point.

What actually did happen? What did Mr Dutton actually do, by operation of law? Well, he allowed a process to take place where those who arrived under Labor—the 50,000 illegal maritime arrivals; again, as I said, it was a terrible time for all, with 1,200 dead at sea and thousands of children in detention, under the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments—could apply to have their claims for protection assessed by the Department of Home Affairs, immigration and border protection. There was no intervention—again, just rhetoric, misleading the Australian public. And no visa was ever granted to this individual. So, again, as I said, never let a fact get in the way of good rhetoric.

This is politics. I'm prepared to accept that that is how the Australian Labor Party operate, but I just want to be clear that, every time they stand up here today and say, 'The Leader of the Opposition when in government did this,' and 'The Leader of the Opposition when in government did that,' I am going to stand here and re-read out the facts. I am going to re-read out the facts so that the Australian people who are listening or who may one day read Hansard understand that they are being sold a pup by the current Labor Albanese government. As I said, Mr Dreyfus is out there giving a press conference. The press should actually say to him: 'Do you stand by what you said when you led PJCIS? Do you stand by what you said when you were the shadow Attorney-General, when you welcomed, in a bipartisan manner, the laws that we are currently debating?'

Minister, I appreciate you've taken on notice the drafting instructions. Could you also take on notice on what date drafting actually commenced? You've referred to both the Benbrika case and the Alexander case, which was handed down in June of last year. Why was the legislation not ready when the decision in the Alexander case was handed down in June of last year?