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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, when answering questions about the High Court case which has led to the release of individuals from immigration detention, government ministers in both chambers repeatedly emphasised that the government resisted the application in the High Court. As you know, the Australian Human Rights Commission appeared in that case and spent taxpayer money arguing against the government and for a result which has led directly to the release of murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. Under the Legal Services Directions, the longstanding requirement of governments on both sides, at least until May last year, was for the Human Rights Commission to seek approval from the Attorney-General before it makes constitutional submissions in the High Court. Did the Attorney-General give approval for the Australian Human Rights Commission to make submissions in the High Court?

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

Can I say to Senator Cash, I think you asked me a similar question on Monday—Tuesday? I'm sorry; the days are blurring. And I did undertake those consultations with the Attorney-General and was going to add to my answer today, at the end of question time. So, I appreciate the opportunity. I am advised that the Australian Human Rights Commission did receive the approval of the Attorney-General to engage lawyers other than the Australian Government Solicitor, which is a technical requirement under the Legal Services Directions. I'm advised that the commission was not required to seek approval for the substance of its submissions, which it made as an independent body, and it was abundantly clear that their submissions did not represent the views or the position of the Commonwealth of Australia.

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

Senator Cash, a first supplementary?

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

After the orders in the case were handed down, the president of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Croucher, said this:

Those detained when they should have been released now have the vindication that their detention was unlawful and may be entitled to restitution.

Does the government now intend to pay compensation to convicted child sex offenders, as the Human Rights Commission suggests?

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

Obviously Ms Croucher is an independent officer, I think appointed under your government. Second, as the senator would know, and as the shadow Attorney-General the senator would be aware, we have a separation of powers in this country. We are a constitutional democracy. The Commonwealth of Australia, under this government, argued against the proposition that the High Court has found. But the High Court has made its decision, and the government is bound to follow it, and we are doing so.

I would also make the point that the other questions you ask are obviously hypotheticals. But the government will deal with any further legal matters and consequences as a result of this decision carefully and in a considered way. And as I flagged earlier, in my answer to Senator Paterson— (Time expired)

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

Senator Cash, a second supplementary?

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

Minister, in relation to your answer to my primary question, did the Attorney-General see or comment on the submissions before they were made, or was he advised of the nature of the submissions that the Australian Human Rights Commission would be making to the High Court of Australia?

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

As I said, the advice I have is that the Australian Human Rights Commission was not required to seek approval for the substance of its submissions, which it makes as an independent body, and was abundantly clear that these did not represent the views or the position of the Commonwealth of Australia. So, what we have is Senator Cash trying to put forward a proposition that an independent body—

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

Senator Cash?

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

The point of order is in relation to relevance, and I am happy for the minister to take it on notice and do appreciate that you may not have the answer. But, in relation to my point, it wasn't about the permission in relation to the submissions; it was in relation to the submissions and whether the Attorney-General was able to see or comment on them or was advised of the nature.

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

I think the minister is being relevant, Senator Cash, but I'll continue to listen carefully.

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

Very helpful, President and Senator Cash. What I can advise is this: (1) the Human Rights Commission was granted leave by the High Court to make submissions in the NZYQ case; (2) the commission is independent of government, and one of its legislated functions is to intervene in court cases that raise human rights issues. I am advised that neither the Attorney-General nor any other minister sign off on what those submissions say. Third, I'm advised that the Attorney-General approved the commission's request for an exemption in relation to its interventions in the terms I have already indicated. (Time expired)