Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong, and relates to the High Court's ruling on immigration detention. This morning the Australian newspaper reported that one of the individuals released from immigration detention following the High Court's ruling last week is 'a violent sex predator with a record of attacking elderly women in their own homes so chilling a judge branded him "a danger to the Australian community"'. Today the Guardian newspaper reported that one of the detainees who was released was convicted of two counts of rape and one of sexual assault. The Guardian reports that the offence occurred at the victim's workplace when he held the victim 'up against a shelf in a blind spot without cameras in a retail store about 4 pm on a Thursday afternoon'. Last night the Australian newspaper reported that one of those released was a person who was convicted of abducting a 28-year-old woman and 'fatally shooting her in a forest on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur and blowing up her body with military-grade explosives'. What other types of offences were committed by those who have now been released?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. I would make the point that the individuals who have now been released as a result of a High Court decision—which the government took a different view on in terms of the submissions; we expressed a different view—were obviously in detention at the time and no action was taken by those opposite to remove them from Australia. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Home Affairs at that time. So I would make this point to the opposition, that—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why couldn't they be?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You tell me. Why couldn't they be? I'll take that intervention. Maybe you should ask Mr Dutton that. Why could they not be removed from Australia? He didn't choose to take those steps.

I understand that Ms O'Neil and Mr Giles have today released a further statement in relation to community safety. We have ensured that ABF officials have briefed local, state and territory police on the possible implications of the case. That was prior to the court's final hearing. Immediately following, the AFP commissioner briefed, in person, the police commissioner of every state and territory on the outcome of the High Court's decision, including the expected numbers of individuals likely to be released by the High Court in each jurisdiction. On 10 November Operation AEGIS, which is a joint Australian Border Force and Australian Federal Police operation, was established, and it is managing the overall response of federal agencies and state and territory police. This operation was established before any person except the plaintiff had been— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Leader of the Government in the Senate's failure to answer a question from Senator Cash yesterday relating to the High Court ruling on indefinite detention. What are the consequences if one of the 80 people so far released under the High Court's orders violates the visa conditions the government has imposed on them? Can they be detained for breaching those conditions?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we have made clear, individuals required to be released as a result of this decision by the High Court have been subject to a range of strict and mandatory visa conditions. These conditions include restricting the types of employment—

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator interjecting

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I would like to invite you, if you would like to, to make a contribution about what you would do if faced with this High Court decision, bearing in mind that these people were in detention under your watch, and no resettlement, removal from Australia, was arranged.

Such conditions can include the restriction of types of employment, requiring regular reporting to authorities and requiring released detainees to report their personal details, including social media profiles, which are being actively monitored. In addition, the government has imposed daily reporting requirements for those with the most serious criminal history. This is in addition to any reporting requirements or orders imposed by state or territory laws. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, a second supplementary?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, your government has moved with lightning speed to release these individuals in advance of the High Court's reasons. Australians now need to live with this risk, but the community still has no idea what you're going to do to protect them. Why can't you tell us what concrete steps you are taking? Why are you so quick to release these detainees but so slow to protect Australians?

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

What a great question!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I notice that the shadow Attorney-General says, 'What a great question.' Are you seriously saying—is the opposition really saying—that they ought not comply with a decision of the High Court of Australia? Seriously? The senator says 'lightning speed'. We are required, as you would have been, to release them, because there is no constitutional basis for their detention. So, a criticism about a move at 'lightning speed' is a suggestion that the government ought not comply with the law—the Constitution. This is a constitutional democracy, whether we like the decision of the High Court or not. (Time expired)