Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill proposes urgent amendments to the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations to support the effective management of non-citizens released from immigration detention following the decision of the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.

While the Commonwealth argued that previous detention settings were constitutionally valid, the High Court's decision requires the immediate release of NZYQ and similarly affected people from immigration detention.

Let me be clear, the safety of the Australian community is the absolute priority of the Australian Government.

While the High Court has not yet handed down the reasons for its decision, non-citizens affected by the NZYQ decision are being released on removal pending bridging visas as a result of the High Court's order. The purpose of this visa is to regularise a non-citizen's migration status pending their removal from Australia.

Removal pending visa holders are all subject to a range of conditions, including key reporting and security conditions.

Importantly, the removal pending visa includes requirements for the person to cooperate and to facilitate their removal from Australia.

The Australian community reasonably expects that all non-citizens in Australia will obey Australia's laws.

The Australian community also expects that non-citizens who do not meet the requirements for migration to Australia, will not undertake activities or engage in further criminal offending that harms the community and could prejudice the Australian Government's ability to facilitate their removal from Australia.

As has been reported publicly, the NZYQ caseload includes certain individuals with serious criminal histories.

The Government is working with state and territory criminal justice agencies, who have primary responsibility for community safety, and the Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force are providing updates to responsible counterparts.

This collaboration is underpinned by an enduring law enforcement engagement mechanism, which was established before any individuals other than the plaintiff in the High Court case had been released. It has also supported NZYQ-affected people to move into state and territory post-offending programs, where appropriate.

Let me be absolutely clear- depending on the nature of the offending, and the circumstances of the individual, the Government is working to ensure the individuals are managed appropriately under the relevant legal frameworks.

The measures outlined in this Bill are proposed to complement and strengthen existing safeguards.

Amendments to the removal pending visa are required to ensure the effective management of this cohort. Non-citizens with a history of serious criminal offending require appropriate and proportionate management while their migration status is being resolved.

Specifically, the Government is proposing to amend the Migration Act to include:

Appropriate amendments to the bridging visa conditions to protect the community, increase monitoring capabilities and reporting obligations, and secure ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs. Including mandatory reporting obligations and discretionary curfew and monitoring requirements which will be imposed on a case by case basis only where necessary to protect the safety of the community, and New criminal offences for failing to comply with these reporting and monitoring conditions.

These amendments are proposed to apply to all existing and future NZYQ affected non-citizens.

This means non-citizens who are no longer able to be managed in immigration detention where there remains no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

New visa conditions

The Government proposes new stringent visa conditions. These new conditions include a discretionary requirement for the visa holder to wear an electronic monitoring device, as directed by the Minister, and a requirement to comply with the electronic device condition.

The purpose of this condition is to protect the community where an individual is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk of harm to the community. The monitoring device supports ongoing monitoring, which will help to keep the community safe.

Electronic monitoring will also assist in preventing people from disengaging or avoiding engagement with the Government, which would hamper efforts to facilitate their removal.

It provides an alternative means for encouraging compliance that will be more suitable in circumstances where additional support alone will not prevent reoffending.

The Bill includes a discretionary requirement for the visa holder to adhere to a curfew for the hours specified by the Minister at the location notified to the department, as required.

A rigorous assessment process will be undertaken by the Department to identify those individuals whose background and past conduct, including criminal offending, makes them of particular concern in terms of future offending.

The Government believes that individuals who pose a particular risk to the community should be required to comply with additional visa conditions such as the wearing of an electronic monitoring device, and/or being locatable at certain hours through a curfew mechanism, where that is reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the community.

These measures are consistent with the legitimate objective of community safety, and the rights and interests of the public, especially vulnerable members of the public.

The conditions relating to electronic monitoring and the curfew are proposed as discretionary conditions and will not apply to all visa holders. They will only be imposed where necessary for the protection of the community. Where appropriate, the conditions may be revoked.

Other conditions developed for the NZYQ caseload are mandatory. These include:

This new condition ensures that proposed employment by the non-citizen is appropriate and consistent with the purpose of the removal pending bridging visa, and reflects community safety considerations.

Under this new condition, the visa holder will be required to obtain Ministerial approval before taking up employment in certain occupations relating to vulnerable people, including minors, or where the arrangement is as a contractor or a volunteer. This condition also includes regular organised activities, whether for reward or otherwise.

This builds upon existing obligations to obtain Ministerial approval in fields such as:

The Government's primary objective is community protection. In order to achieve this objective, the Minister's approval will be required prior to the visa holder's engagement in occupations involving ongoing interactions with minors, such as education, child-care, or babysitting.

Ministerial approval will also be required in other roles requiring a Working with Vulnerable People Check.

The proposed new conditions also include:

A requirement for the visa holder to notify the Government of changes in finances, including any significant transactions, debts or income.

This notification requirement supports the Department to identify circumstances that could prejudice the Commonwealth's ability to resolve the visa holder's migration status, in particular, to affect removal, and to allow the Government to appropriately manage community safety considerations and the circumstances of the visa holder.

The proposed new conditions also include:

Again, these conditions are essential for ensuring the Department of Home Affairs, and the Australian Border Force remain aware of the non-citizen's location, activities and associations, and that the visa holder remains engaged so they are available for removal as soon as removal is reasonably practicable.

This Bill proposes that the breach of some of these conditions will be a criminal offence.

New criminal f ences

Ordinarily, a visa holder who does not comply with a condition of their visa may be considered for visa cancellation on the basis of that breach—and if cancelled, would be liable to be detained as an unlawful non-citizen.

For the NZYQ-affected cohort, immigration detention is not available. As such, the prospect of visa cancellation for a breach of a visa condition is not an effective deterrent against non-compliance with reporting requirements.

Establishing new offences for NZYQ-affected visa holders, sends a clear message about the importance of compliance with requirements to report to the Department of Home Affairs, and to notify of changes in circumstances.

These new offences relate to:

Each of the offences would only be enforced following due consideration of the circumstances of the case, recognising they are designed to support a proportionate response in circumstances where the non-citizen attempts to deliberately or repeatedly evade contact with, and monitoring by, the Department of Home Affairs.

The aim is to reflect the seriousness of the breach of conditions.

Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years and equivalent penalty units to address serious and repeated cases of non-compliance

Importantly, the offences also encourage compliance with conditions that help to ensure the non-citizen engages appropriately in removal processes.

It is reasonable to expect that removal pending visa holders will cooperate with the authorities to facilitate their removal from Australia if and when that becomes possible. This cooperation includes refraining from activities that either threaten community safety or otherwise prejudice the Government's efforts to facilitate removal from Australia.

The evidentiary burden for establishing a reasonable defence for failure to comply with the conditions will sit with the non-citizen. The standard defences available in the Criminal Code will also apply.

By establishing an offence specifically for NZYQ-affected bridging visa holders, the Government is making it clear that compliance with conditions and ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs is of critical importance.

This includes in-person reporting and reporting by other means. It also includes notifying the Department of Home Affairs of changes in circumstances to give both the Department and the Australian Border Force continuing visibility over the visa holder's movements and circumstances.

This reporting will also help to ensure the non-citizen is available as soon as the visa holder's removal from Australia becomes practicable.

The importance of amendments to similar legislation

It is critical that these arrangements are enacted through an amendment to the Migration Act. And it will remove any doubt that these new laws apply to both current and future NZYQ-affected cases.

Pending passage and commencement of these measures, new visas will be granted to this cohort with the new conditions imposed.

This will occur by operation of law.

In essence, this means the original visa ceases completely and is replaced by a new visa that must be held with the mandatory conditions automatically imposed.

The Government will continue to work through the implications of this High Court judgment, and the ongoing engagement of the visa holders is necessary to support this process.

Additional measures

These amendments are necessary as an immediate response following the High Court's decision. Further responses may be required once we have received the High Court's reasons for decision.

The overarching objective is to bolster the existing framework and ensure an enduring, and appropriately robust, framework for the management of NZYQ affected non-citizens over the long-term.

Closing remarks

In closing, the High Court's decision has significant implications for immigration compliance and for the community protection objectives of the Government.

While it is important that we enact this legislation as a priority, further safeguards are being considered.

Community protection remains a fundamental priority, and the measures included in this Bill are fundamental for providing the legislative framework to support this outcome.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to 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.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're being ridiculous.

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

I'm sure Senator Pratt is not interjecting to question the testimony of a victim to the Guardian about her rapist who is now free to get around the community.

This bill could go much further, and it should go much further. There are provisions already in the high-risk terrorist offenders framework which go further and would have offered much more robust protection to Australians. They include preventative detention orders. They also include continuing detention orders, extended supervision orders and control orders. The government, despite the time it has had, despite the warning it has had from Justice Gleeson, has taken no action whatsoever to introduce such a regime. They say it's not possible to do so until the High Court hands down its ruling. Well, we're all awaiting the High Court's reasons for their ruling. We are all looking forward to reading that, but I don't think the Australian community can afford to wait until they do so. I don't think we can wait until January, February, March or whenever the court finalises its rulings and publishes them before we take action to protect Australians.

The government says that, if we introduced one of those regimes right now to protect the community, it itself could be vulnerable to constitutional challenge in the High Court. That may well be true. The High Court may eventually hear a case which eventually knocks out any regime that the parliament now introduces to protect Australians. Even if the High Court does eventually do that, in the meantime the Australian community would have had the benefit of the protection of that regime. But of course it's not certain that the High Court would do that. It is not certain that the High Court would rule that out. That the government is not even willing to take that risk to protect the community reflects very badly on them.

The Prime Minister's not here today. I am someone who very strongly supports the need for the Prime Minister to travel internationally in these times of heightened strategic competition. I don't take any issue with his attendance at important international fora—we need a seat at the table. But he should not have left the country until this matter was dealt with. He should have used the time he had while he was in the country to make sure that these robust protections for the community passed. He hasn't done so. That is a failure of leadership by the Prime Minister. That is an abdication of responsibility. He should not be jetting off while criminals remain free to roam the streets. I've been asked this week in the discussion about this issue, 'Why shouldn't these people who have been convicted, who have been incarcerated and who have been freed at the end of their sentences simply be free to return to the community like any Australian would be if they were convicted of an offence and completed their time in jail?' There's a very important fundamental difference, which I hope there is complete agreement about across the chamber today—perhaps not up the Greens' end of the chamber. An Australian citizen has an absolute right to be here in their country, whether they're convicted of a serious crime or not; there's nothing we can do about that. But a visitor, a guest, to this country has to meet a higher bar. The Migration Act says they have to meet the character provisions of the act.

I don't think, Senator McKim, that a rapist, a murderer or a child sex abuser meets the definition of 'good character'. It is a privilege to be in this country—if you are not a citizen of this country, it is not a right. If you commit those serious crimes, I think you violate that privilege, you lose that privilege, you are not entitled to be here, and you should be able to be deported. There are some very rare special cases where it is difficult to deport people, but the Australian community cannot be satisfied that this government has done all that it could to remove that threat to this community. It has not done everything it could to ensure that these offenders do not re-offend now that they have been admitted to the community.

We have seen some extremely distressing media coverage over the weekend about how this release has been handled. We remember Senator Watt assuring the chamber last week, when we asked him what would happen following the High Court case, that only the plaintiff, NZYQ, would be released into the community, and all others, including the 92 identified by the Solicitor-General in the High Court as being of risk, would not be released until the High Court handed down its reasons. Well, over the weekend, the government did exactly that. They began the process of releasing all of those offenders, now 84 in total. We read in the West Australian that dozens of them were simply dumped in a motel, free to go about whatever activities they want, party into the late hours of the evening, welcome guests to the motel in the early hours of the morning and have no meaningful restrictions imposed upon them. We heard from the immigration minister, Mr Giles, in the other place that every single one of these people when they were released into the community were released on a visa with binding conditions. We know those conditions were not binding, and we also know—courtesy of the evidence of David Mann, a lawyer for these people, that in fact they were initially released into the community without any visas at all and therefore no conditions at all, even the non-binding ones. They were only subsequently issued with visas which imposed those restrictions. This has been a catastrophic mishandling of the issue from the beginning.

It was on Monday this week that we first asked Senator Wong what the consequences would be if a person released into the community breached the conditions of their visa. It wasn't answered, so we asked again on Tuesday. It wasn't answered again, so we asked again on Wednesday, and finally we secured the admission from the minister that it was in fact true that these conditions imposed on the release of these people with their visas were non-binding and that the government would remedy that finally today with legislation.

When we get to the committee stage, I look forward to understanding why this legislation was not ready earlier. I look forward to understanding why the government weren't prepared in advance, given the warnings that the High Court clearly gave them months ago. Of course, the basic due diligence of any government is that, when any important national security or community safety legislation is being challenged in the High Court, particularly on a constitutional basis, there must be a backup plan. There must be a plan B. There must be a draft bill ready to go so that in the event that the government loses its case, which is always a possibility, it stands ready to remedy the consequences of that and protect the community.

Senator Cash and I will move a number of amendments when we get to the committee stage, because we don't believe this bill goes far enough or sufficiently protects the community. I really hope that the chamber and the government can support those amendments. We haven't had a lot of time to consider them, but nonetheless they have been drafted. We do think they are necessary and offer additional security and protection for the community, and we do hope that the government can sincerely consider these amendments.

The most sacred duty of any government is to protect the Australian people. It's our first responsibility as parliamentarians, and, for those who ever have the honour of being a minister, it is their first and most important duty. It's been very clear over the last week that the government has failed on that. They were not ready for this case, they did not act in time, and, now that they are acting, they are not acting enough. We are seeking to help them remedy that today to make sure that it is addressed more adequately and that the Australian community is protected from serious, violent noncitizen offenders now out on the streets.

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

I indicate that I am not the minister closing the debate on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. I will just make a short contribution, but Minister Watt is handling this debate. I want to just make this point: Mr Dutton has a decision to make today. His decision is either to play politics, which is what that contribution was about, or to help the Senate and the government make our community safer. That's the decision.

The first test of that, colleagues, is whether or not the opposition will provide the amendments that they are proposing. That's the first test. I note that they've been out there talking about these amendments. We want to talk to them about these amendments to see if we can work through them and ensure that we pass this legislation quickly. We still haven't seen them, and we invite you to provide those amendments. I know that the Acting Prime Minister has written to Mr Dutton. So that's the first test: are they actually going to provide them so that we can work through them together?

As I said, Mr Dutton faces a choice today: is he going to work with the government to keep the community safe, or is he going to stand in the way of swift action because he wants to play more politics with this? It shouldn't be a difficult choice, should it? The government has introduced urgent legislation to strengthen these restrictions and impose criminal penalties which are needed to keep Australians safe.

I note that Senator Paterson has left the chamber, and I don't criticise that—he's not required to stay—but I did note this morning a contradiction between him and Mr Tehan. Mr Tehan said the government had to get a move on to get legislation through, but Senator Paterson said we were in no rush. Well, we are committed to getting this legislation through as soon as is possible, and we invite the opposition to assist with that instead of doing what they so often do on this front, which is to play politics in an attempt to try and suggest that they're the only people who care about national security, which is untrue. They are actually prepared to delay making Australians safer as a consequence. So that's the decision the opposition have to make.

I'll make one final point. We argued against the decision the High Court has made. In the chamber on Monday, when I was being critical of Mr Dutton having set up a scheme that was unconstitutional, Senator Paterson said: 'Give us a break. It's a 20-year precedent.' That's true; it is. The High Court overturned a 20-year precedent. That's the High Court's right. The government argued against it, but the High Court has decided. Those opposite have attempted to suggest that the government somehow has a choice around complying with the High Court decision. Senator Cash is a lawyer. She knows that that choice is not open to any government. She knows that. Any attempt to suggest otherwise, which has been the way in which some of this debate has proceeded in question time, is really another demonstration of their willingness to say and do anything for political purposes.

But we are here today with a bill before us that will make Australians safer. I appreciate that Senator McKim is going to speak, and I'm sure he's not going to be happy with it, but this is a bill that will make Australians safe. Senator Cash, I invite you to provide us with your amendments. Work with us to get this bill through as quickly as is practicable. Don't delay it. Give us the amendments, and we will work through them with the opposition. That is the public invitation from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Acting Prime Minister to the opposition. Don't play politics. Give us the amendments. Let's get this through as quickly as we can.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 is legislation that, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, in the House of Representatives just this morning, gives the government 'powers that no government has ever had before' in Australia. That is a direct quote from the Minister for Home Affairs in the other place this morning. This bill is so critical that it gives the government powers that it has never before had—powers that can be imposed on people who are innocent people, not because they've been convicted of a crime. These people are going to be, by definition, noncitizens. They are going to be migrants. They are going to be refugees. These are people who have already been detained, in some cases for many years, in a manner that the High Court has just found to have been unlawful. Yet here we find ourselves.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has confected an emergency, just as former prime minister John Howard did when the Tampa hove over the horizon more than two decades ago, cheerled by the Murdoch media, just as they did when the MVTampa hove over the horizon more than 20 years ago. The Labor Party has capitulated in the most abject and craven fashion, just as they did when the MV Tampa hove over the horizon 20 years ago. If there's one thing that the major parties in this place can agree on, it's that, when you need to demonise someone in this country, demonise refugees! There is a bipartisan lock step of cruelty to refugees that has run through this country for too long, and it needs to end. We have seen refugees on the MV Tampa persecuted, politicised and demonised. We've seen them persecuted on Manus Island. We've seen them persecuted, dehumanised and demonised on Nauru. And we're seeing it again today. Make no mistake: this is Prime Minister Albanese's Tampa moment, and history will condemn him for this, just as it condemned Mr Howard and Mr Beazley over 20 years ago.

These are draconian laws that will provide the minister, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, with powers never before seen in Australia. These laws allow for visa conditions to be opposed, which is detention by another name: curfews—effectively house arrest—and electronic surveillance or, as it's more commonly known, electronic detention. In order to try to get around the High Court, to try to subvert the highest court in this country, the Labour Party is bringing in legislation—which I have no doubt at all will be supported by the Liberals—that will provide for detention by another name and will also, for the first time, criminalise any breach of bail conditions, and that offence will be punishable by a jail term of up to five years.

So, mark my words, they are going to set people up to fail by putting in place punitive conditions that are almost impossible to comply with. And when they've set them up to fail and people inevitably fail—through carelessness or through not paying due attention to where they find themselves or to the fine print of reporting conditions or any other conditions—they will be charged, and then they will potentially be imprisoned by the courts. And the government is doing all this in less than a day. Here we are, debating under a gag motion agreed to by the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics—the political duopoly, operating in zombie lock step—to once again punish vulnerable refugees, because it's in their political interests to do so.

This legislation creates a two-tiered justice system in this country where some migrants and refugees will be subject to measures that Australian citizens will not and cannot be subject to. This will divide our country and set one group of people inside Australia against another.

Labor is a party that once prided itself on championing human rights and justice, and it's now marching to the tune of opposition leader Peter Dutton, a man who has built a political career on trampling human rights and demonising refugees. It is an utter disgrace—an abject, craven capitulation by a party that has forgotten where it comes from and forgotten what it used to stand for. Labor's decision to fast-track this legislation has been made for one reason and one reason only. It is because they have cravenly collapsed under the political pressure applied by Mr Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, amplified and magnified by his friends and cheerleaders in the Murdoch media.

We've heard a lot about community safety during this debate, but let's be really clear about the big threat to community safety: allowing politicians to arbitrarily impose punishment on people. That is the big threat to community safety, because that takes us a number of steps down the pathway towards tyranny. Historically, countries that are now considered to be Western democracies have come from tyrannical regimes. The monarchy in England was a tyrannical regime, and a revolution was fought to establish parliaments. Yet here we are in a parliament, taking steps back down the road to tyranny.

This is a disgraceful display of political opportunism by Mr Dutton and a craven capitulation by the Australian Labor Party. To make it worse, Labor's leader in the House, Mr Burke, this morning confirmed that there is 'absolutely a possibility of further legislation after the High Court delivers its reasons'. This brings me to the next obvious point. We are ramming this through, and it will pass today. I predict only the Greens will oppose it. It will pass today. It is a response to a High Court decision that we have not yet seen the reasons for. This parliament is shadow-boxing with the High Court. We don't even know what the actual scope of the High Court decision is. We don't know what its reasons are. We don't know who's going to be caught by that decision. But let's blindly stagger on, eh? Government and opposition, let's blindly stagger on because, when we don't know what to do, we're just going to collude to demonise refugees. It is a pattern we have seen repeated time after time after time in this place.

I want to speak a little bit to the detail of this legislation. We, the Greens, have concerns about issues such as necessity, proportionality and the limited judicial appeal rights that are granted to people under this legislation. Curfews have traditionally only been used for serious criminal offenders or where there is a flight risk. But I want people to understand—because you wouldn't know this from the serial mistruths that have been propagated in this debate by the Leader of the Opposition and his cohort in this chamber—that not all of the people caught by the High Court decision have been convicted of a crime. There are a significant number who have not, yet this legislation provides for the minister to arbitrarily impose visa conditions, including curfew and electronic detention, on people who have never been convicted of a crime. Yet all we're getting is cheerleading from everyone else in this place except for the Greens. I note the only people to oppose this legislation in the lower house were the Australian Greens. Mr Wilkie supported it. A number of the MPs known as the teals supported this legislation—a disgraceful capitulation by those folks as well as by the Labor Party. This legislation creates a class of people who are judged not by their actions but by their visa status.

The debate around this matter has exposed the extent to which the media ecosystem in this parliament and this country is utterly broken. The media, with a small number of honourable exceptions, have swallowed Mr Dutton's framing hook, line and sinker on this. That includes a number of journalists in outlets that should know better. I expect that rubbish from the Murdoch media, but I don't expect it from organisations who should know better. But that's what we've been served up in this debate. The overwhelming majority of the media in this building and in this country need to take a good, long look at themselves in the mirror over the way they have reported this issue.

I also want to make the point that, if a noncitizen wants to contend that they have a reasonable excuse for a breach of a visa condition, the burden of evidentiary proof will be on them. They have to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for a breach. That is contrary to natural justice and the norms around where the burden of proof is generally allocated in Australian law.

Let me remind the Senate that those who will be caught by this legislation who had in the past committed crimes—and that is by no means all of the people that will be caught—have already served their time. This is double punishment. This is double jeopardy and double punishment. What I say in terms of the legality of this legislation is: stand by for another return to the High Court. I've got no doubt the Labor government has got advice from the Solicitor-General that this is all fine and it's all in accordance with the Constitution, but that's what they said last time, and they got turfed out by the High Court just last week. There will be a High Court challenge to these powers when the appropriate case arises; mark my words.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does the Attorney-General think?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Hanson-Young has just raised, it would be very interesting to hear the actual opinion of the Attorney-General, the first law officer of this land, on this legislation. I'd be very interested to know what Mr Dreyfus really thought about this legislation.

I've seen some rubbish come through parliaments in my two decades as an MP. This one is right up there with the worst, foulest, most disgusting legislative rubbish I have seen in my two decades in the parliament. The Australian Greens will proudly oppose this bill.

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

I too rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. Let's just put into perspective what the Senate is currently looking at today. I want to quote from the editor-in-chief of the West Australian newspaper in his opinion piece today. Murderers, child rapists, contract killers and DV thugs. Listening to the contribution of others in the chamber, you might think we were talking about innocent lambs, but let us be very clear: we are not. These are people who have been convicted of raping young children. In fact, the plaintiff in this case, let's be very clear for anyone who is having any doubt, was convicted of raping a 10-year-old boy. That is a despicable, disgusting crime, quite frankly, goes without saying, and anyone who would stand in this chamber and argue that those people have rights, I think, should hang their heads in shame.

These are people who have committed murder. These are people who have committed serious domestic violence offences. These are people who are of the worst character this country has ever seen. On top of that, let us not forget these people are non-citizens of Australia. In other words, they actually have no right to be in this country. Child rapists, murderers, DV thugs and contract killers—so let's put this debate into perspective. There are some of us in this chamber—and I am proud to be proud of the former coalition government and, indeed, the coalition in general, which has always believed and, if we are given the privilege of governing again, let me make it very clear: we will continue to ensure that the fundamental responsibility of the federal government of Australia is the protection of Australia and Australians. And let me be very, very clear that we will never wavier in our commitment to put the Australian people and their security and their defence first. Quite frankly, the shambles that we have seen with this government over the last week clearly show that the Albanese government does not share this basic belief. The way that this legislation has been brought to this chamber demonstrates their inability to execute what is a basic but fundamental responsibility of a federal government and demonstrates their inability to govern Australia. Quite frankly, you have to question whether or not Mr Albanese as the Prime Minister is actually fit for office.

The government would like to tell you they've acted responsibly. The government would like to tell you that they have done everything they can to protect Australia and Australians. Well, that is just wrong, and it is wrong based on the facts of this particular case. Any government that took seriously the protection of Australia and Australians would have listened when, in June of this year, the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the land, through Justice Gleeson, gave a clear indication to the minister for immigration and to the government that it was on shaky ground. The government as of June of this year should have been prepared for this case. I can tell you right now, if Peter Dutton was the Prime Minister of this country, he would have ensured that his government was prepared. He wouldn't have just released 84 detainees out onto the street without actually having an appropriate response. But this government throws its hands up and says: 'Well, we didn't know. We weren't prepared, but we've been scrambling to prepare ever since.' Well, guess what? That is not borne out by the facts.

What is also not borne out by the facts are the comments that the coalition has not been prepared to work with the government. If I recall correctly, it is Peter Dutton, as the Leader of the Opposition and the alternative Prime Minister in this country, who has actually been the person out there every day saying the government needs to bring on legislation to clean up what is now a mess—not the government; it is Peter Dutton who has been out there every day saying that.

So we end up here today, and guess what? Senator Wong came in and accused us of playing politics. Well, Senator Wong, we asked for the bill and the explanatory memorandum to be presented to us last night. Senator James Paterson, Mr Dan Tehan, Mr Peter Dutton and myself would have sat here till midnight or three am; we wouldn't have gone to bed so that we could properly analyse your legislation and make sure the legislation that you are bringing forward is fit for purpose. But guess what? The government didn't give us that courtesy. Instead, we were told that we could have a briefing at 7.15 this morning, and that was the first time that the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for immigration, the shadow minister for home affair and myself were shown the legislation.

A quick glance in that briefing showed me the legislation is fundamentally flawed. The legislation itself is not fit for purpose. Why do I say that? Because clearly you scrambled to draft it. Really, you're obviously too scared to put in place the measures that will appropriately protect the Australian people. The legislation, as Peter Dutton has said in the other place this morning, is completely inadequate. And, frankly, it looks like it was literally thrown together at the last minute.

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

Because it was!

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

Because it was. That's exactly right, Senator Scarr—because it was. Senator Wong said the opposition is being disingenuous in that—she is the Acting Prime Minister because the Prime Minister is not here, despite Mr Dutton's call yesterday for him not to get on a plane but to stay in Australia and deal with the mess that this country is confronted with. If you did believe that the fundamental responsibility of your Commonwealth government is the safety and security of the nation and its people, you would have done that. Mr Dutton has said we are here to work with you. The parliament should not rise until this is dealt with. Mr Albanese, though, had other ideas.

The front page of the West Australian newspaper today really says it all: 'Fight or flight.' That is not me; that is the West Australian newspaper—fight or flight. There is a picture of Mr Albanese getting on the plane, and clearly he has chosen flight. That is not to say that the duties that he had overseas are not important, but the option was certainly given to them that the parliament could sit until the matter was dealt with. Mr Albanese chose a different course of action.

The quick glance that the Leader of the Opposition, Senator James Paterson, Mr Tehan and I had has revealed to us that the legislation is inadequate. We have been drafting amendments this morning. I note that in the other place, interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition was denied the opportunity to move these amendments. I say shame on the government for not allowing the Leader of the Opposition—he has been the Minister for Defence and also for many, many years held the portfolio of Minister for Home Affairs—to do that. I would have thought the government would welcome the constructive contribution from a person who for nine years sat around the cabinet table, who also sat around the table of the National Security Committee of cabinet and, not only that, who clearly understands this portfolio better than both Mr Giles and Ms O'Neill. But no, that input was not welcomed by the government. Instead, they rushed the legislation through the House. Therefore, yes, we will be moving amendments in the Senate later on this evening and we will be discussing those amendments with the government.

But I want to make it very clear, given Senator Wong's comments, that when you do not do us the courtesy of providing us with legislation the night before, even though it was clearly there to go, and when you present to us that legislation only at 7.15 in the morning, saying to us, 'We expect this to be passed later on this morning,' you probably will not be surprised that, when we realise at first glance that the legislation you are bringing before parliament is deficient, the coalition will say to you, 'We will draft amendments to ensure, to the extent that we can, that the legislation, this weak bill is fit for purpose.' I would have thought you'd actually say thank you, because we're helping you clean up a mess.

We want you to get this right because we do take seriously the responsibility of a federal government when it comes to defending Australians and to ensuring their security. We are a former federal government that has a track record that clearly shows we are prepared to take action. We are a federal opposition that, if we had been in government and we had been given the clear indication by the High Court of Australia in June of this year, would have had options available the minute the decision came down. Instead, we have seen from this government every possible excuse that you could think of to throw at the Australian people.

Where do we end up? We have now ended up with someone who has been convicted of raping a 10-year-old boy being out on the streets.

If you'd read the West Australian yesterday, you would have seen that in my home state, despite everything the government said about putting conditions on their visas, of the 32 released detainees, seven of them—made up of convicted rapists, domestic violence offenders and murderers—were dumped at a motel in Thornlie. From all accounts by a journalist who decided to spend the night there himself, there weren't too many of these conditions. This is despite the government standing up and telling the people of Australia that they take the matter seriously and they have their back. I have to wonder: does Mr Albanese actually have the back of Australians? I really do wonder because you can't come up with a solution overnight in relation to convicted child rapists, murderers, contract killers and DV thugs who are not entitled to be in this country. They are not entitled to be here because they are non-citizens. If you can't come up with a solution to put the safety and security of the Australian people first then, quite frankly, you are not fit to govern this country.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, and I have to say I agree with everything that Senator Cash has just said in this chamber. Since this happened last week, my office has been inundated with phone calls, emails and letters from the general public stating their concerns with regard to these people and how this situation came to happen. Senator McKim stood up and said: 'But these are innocent people. They are refugees.' They are not refugees. These are people that are in the country illegally. They are not Australian citizens. They have been here for years. Do you know why? They have destroyed their identification documents. We don't even know who a lot of them are because they came to this country having destroyed their identification documents. If you were truly a refugee and in fear for your life, you would have no problem explaining to the authorities who you are and why you are here.

A lot of them are economic refugees, and we know that some have passed through many other countries to get here. They paid people smugglers to get here, and we now find that these people are nothing but criminals like paedophiles. Senator Pratt is humming and hawing over there about what I'm saying. Are you denying it? Through the chair, has Senator Pratt anything to say on why she does not believe that they are criminals? That's been reported, and it is quite well know that they are criminals.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. I want to remind the chamber that we need to make sure that we are not impugning other people in the chamber or their motivations and that all comments are directed through the chair.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that how this situation has been dealt with is absolutely disgusting. The bill has been rushed in. Senator Cash said that the opposition got the bill last night. I only got it in my hands about five minutes before I walked into this chamber. We have had no chance to really have a look at this bill.

As I was saying, the public are furious about this. It's been on talkback radio, and the public are incensed. It is about national security. I am ropeable about the fact that these people have been released. As Senator Cash said, the government knew what was going to happen, and they did nothing to prepare. It's typical of this government. As I've said on numerous occasions, it's the worst government to rule this country that I have seen in my seven years in this chamber and another nearly three years in the other place. It's absolutely the worst government. You are unprepared, and you don't know what you are doing. The legislation put through this place is pathetic to say the least. When you put it up, you make so many amendments to it. You don't even know what you are doing, you don't have a plan for anything and you don't have a plan for this at all.

On such an important issue as this, especially as we are hearing from the public, you would think that you would work closely with the opposition to find the right answers to deal with this—for national security and for the future of this nation. But you are so bloody-minded that you're not interested in that. You only handed it to the opposition last night and, even today, you want to block debate on this. You want to have only an hour's debate on this, an hour and a half at the most. You want to shut it down, on such an important issue as this, and you're supposed to be governing this country.

These are not innocent people. That's why the Australian people are up in arms about this. As we've said a number of times, there are crimes that they have committed. One of these men is from Kuala Lumpur. He attacked a pregnant woman and then blew her up. That's the type of person we've allowed on our streets.

They're not Australian citizens. If they're refugees, just ordinary law-abiding refugees, why haven't they been given citizenship? Because they're not of good character. That is the thing: they are not of good character. We don't want them here, but because we can't seem to get it together right—these people should have been deported. But I know for a fact that a lot of countries won't take them back. You thought it was all boat people who were coming out here. We had 50,000 boat people. Of course, the Greens wanted to open the floodgates and allow all these refugees into the country: 'We should allow them in. We should look after them. These people have a right to come here. It's not about protecting our borders and knowing who we allow in the country. Just let these people flood into the country.' But a lot of these people actually come in on planes. They fly into the country and they destroy their identification. And we can't send them back to a lot of the countries they come from because those countries want to know who they are. That's why they destroy their identification—because they don't want to be sent back. They're economic refugees. They come here for a reason. And they know that we are so soft that we can't get rid of them. That's why they've been in detention for a long time.

There was the member of the lower house who said we should bring them from these detention centres into Australia for medevac reasons. They actually swallowed stones. They poured boiling water over their kids. They did these hideous crimes to themselves and to their families purely to get into Australia so that they couldn't be deported. These are people we've allowed into Australia. They're not innocent. They're not innocent people at all.

These people who were released and are now in our community have been housed and put up in hotel accommodation. We can't do that for our own Australians who are sleeping on the streets, living in tents, and yet we're doing it for these people. I'd like to put it to the Greens, especially Senator McKim: Are you going to open up your house to them? How many are you going to invite into your home? How many are you going to look after? How many of the Greens will do that? I think you should stand on principle and I think you should house them. If you think they're so willing to be here and you feel safe with them in your home, open up your home and pay their bills—not the Australian taxpayer, because now they actually have the right to, and we're paying for, their welfare.

I think the public have a right to know who they are and where they're going. You say there are conditions under this legislation. Senator McKim says the conditions we're going to put on them are so restrictive. I'll just read out a few of them:

The holder must report at the time or times; and at a place or in a manner; specified orally or in writing by the Minister from time to time.

I don't think that's unreasonable. This is another:

If the holder is directed orally or in writing, by the Minister to attend, at a specified place, on a specified day and at a specified time, an interview that relates to the holder's visa—

I don't think that's a hard one.

Notify the department of the full name, and date of birth, of each person who ordinarily resides with the holder at the holder's residential address

Is that difficult? I don't think so.

must obtain the Minister's approval before commencing to perform work, or a regular organised activity, involving more than incidental contact with a minor or any other vulnerable person

I think that's feasible.

must notify the Department of the details of any contact with the following:

(a) any individual, group or organisation that is alleged, or is known by the holder, to be engaging in criminal or other illegal activities;

(b) any individual, group or organisation that has previously engaged in, or has expressed an intention to engage in, criminal or other illegal activities.

This is where Senator McKim thinks this is just setting them all up for failure—this is not being responsible and reporting to the Australian government or the department. Here's another one:

must notify Department of the following matters:

(a) the holder receives, within any period of 30 days, an amount or amounts totalling AUD10 000 or more from one or more other persons;

(b) the holder transfers, within any period of 30 days, an amount or amounts totalling AUD10 000 or more to one or more other persons;

(c) the holder's banking arrangements change …

If the holder incurs a debt or debts totalling AUD10 000 or more

That's the financial circumstances. That's not setting them up. There is nothing in this bill that is actually detrimental to them being caught out, so that is an absolutely ridiculous statement from Senator McKim.

We have the High Court's decision about how you can't hold them indefinitely. I put to the opposition that we should possibly look at an amendment to this to put a time frame on it—that you can't hold them any more than, say, 25 or 30 years. If you put a time frame on it and if that were amended and put through, then these people could actually be rounded up again and put into the detention centres. The court's decision has already been made. They have been released. And then, if they end up in detention centres, there is a time frame there—it's not indefinite detention. Maybe if these people knew that then they might come forward with who they are, with identification.

Those are thugs and criminals that I don't want in this country. Once someone said: 'You could be sending them back to their deaths. With all of the crimes committed, if they went back to their own countries, they would give them the death sentence.' You know what? I don't care. They can go back to their own countries. And a lot of Australians will feel exactly the same way. What's going to happen if you've got that type of person in Australia is that a lot of them don't change, and I will grieve any Australian that may lose their life because of these animals that we have released in our community. I will call them that, because that's how I feel they are, especially a man who rapes a 10-year-old boy or a man who murders and then blows up a woman. They are disgusting animals. This is what the Greens want to keep in the country—these types of people.

Like I said, we have over the years had a very well organised and managed refugee program. We do take refugees in this country. I have many refugees from Vietnam and from other countries around the world who come up to me and say they were given such a privilege to come to Australia, who appreciate the opportunity they were given to become Australian citizens. That's wonderful to hear. We do give people these opportunities, especially from countries like Vietnam, with what happened to the people over there, and other countries whose people we've allowed into Australia. But there comes a point when you've got to make sure of who you allow into the country: that they are going to be good citizens, of good character, and that they will be proud to abide by our laws, our culture and our way of life. That's what it means to be a good Australian citizen.

We have now breached our national security, as far as I'm concerned. As I said, the Labor Party is at an absolute loss, with another one of the bills they've put before this parliament. They have no idea at all how to deal with this. I think it's absolutely disgusting that our Prime Minister is out of the country at this time on yet another visit. He was just in the United States, what, a week or two ago? He's on another visit to the United States. He's not in the country, again. He's constantly out of the country. This is one of the most important issues that we are facing now. It's concerning many Australians. I remember the Labor Party and the left-leaning media having the audacity to have a go at Scott Morrison, who was on holidays in Hawaii, because he wasn't here to hold a hose for the bushfires—is that what it was about? We need the Prime Minister here in this country to deal with an important issue with important legislation around criminals being released on our streets. I don't hear anything from the left-leaning media—nothing whatsoever. You're quite happy to have a go at the coalition whenever you can, but you constantly let the Labor Party off time and time again. You do not hold them to the same account as you did with the coalition when they were in government. That's what the issue is about: that the media don't hold the Labor Party to account. Everyone should be held to account in this place, but you let them slide through. You don't hold them to account. It's the same thing with this piece of legislation. I wish that you would get your act together, work with the opposition with regard to this and make sure that we protect our national security and protect the safety of the Australian people. That's what they want. They want assurances from the leaders of this nation that they are being considered and looked after. I will say it again: look after the Australian people first and foremost before allowing the bleeding hearts in this chamber and outside to worry about everyone else.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian people are a very generous bunch of people. We have overseen one of the largest migration programs that any country has seen since the Second World War. We have been able to take in people from all across the globe. That's been possible because, whilst governments have run proper migration programs, they've also been prepared to protect the citizenry and to protect the existing Australian people as part of that process. The confidence that the Australian people have in the migration program is a very important thing. We have been a very successful and harmonious multicultural society—perhaps the most successful. The confidence that the community has that the government of the day is able to protect the Australian people is critical to maintaining that confidence that we want to see. We want to be a country which is open for business, and we want to be a country that is able to accept genuine refugees, as we have over the last 75 years in particular.

That is what is so disappointing about the way that the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 has been managed. I've spent a lot of my contributions in this chamber talking about the economic mismanagement of this government. But this is another very disappointing failure in that it is maladministration writ large that you could know about something that was a possible risk to the community for more than six months. The government was on notice that it was possible that the High Court would say, 'That law is not valid, and therefore the people that have been held in detention will be released into the community, including people who have been convicted of very serious crimes.' Maintaining confidence is one thing, but it is also important that we don't have a situation where there are loopholes in our successful border protection regime. When I talk about border protection, I'm talking about a policy suite that sits alongside a successful migration program. These two things are interlinked.

Setting aside the risk about community confidence and community safety, there is a very large risk here that there could be a situation where a very large loophole could be opened up where stateless people could be artificially constructed and thereby use this loophole, which has been opened up by the law being struck down, which the government knew was a risk. The government knew about this for six months. That is something that we now need to consider and fix, because we cannot have holes in our border protection regime. If there are holes, they will be exploited by criminals, people smugglers and the like. And if there is a way for people to destroy their identification and to become stateless in some form, that cannot be a back door into our migration program, because Australia is a great country, it is a harmonious country, and there are millions of people around the world who would like to come here. But that needs to be done on a legal and orderly basis. One thing everyone in the coalition agrees with is that we need to manage our borders in accordance with our rules and our values, and we do that in conjunction with a generous humanitarian program and other migration programs.

This was not an unforeseeable risk. Six months ago the government was put on notice that this was going to be a potential problem, and last week the High Court found that the law was to be struck down. In the last week we've seen a process where 83 or 84 people have been released into the community—murderers, rapists and other criminals, released into the community—and that number could swell to 340. We could see 340 criminals released onto Australia's streets with no measure—and this is a key point—that that can be deployed to detain these people. There's no lawful way of detaining one of these people, because of the High Court's judgement. Right now, as it stands, we have a lawless position. And the 83 or 84 people—it could become 340—can effectively do what they like, and there is no capacity to re-detain these people. That is an unacceptable risk in a free society that believes in the rule of law and believes in orderly migration.

The Australian people would expect better from their government. The Australian people would think, okay, the government was put on notice six months ago that there was a problem with the law that may lead to the release of murderers and rapists. The Australian people are reasonable people, and they would have expected that the government would have a contingency plan in case the High Court did strike down the law—that on that afternoon or the next day the minister in the government would walk into the parliament and table the legislation that fixes the loophole and protects the citizens of Australia and gives the law enforcement authorities some capacity to detain people and protect the community. At the moment, unfortunately, our law enforcement agencies are not equipped with any legal power or jurisdiction to do anything in relation to this group of people.

The government have, belatedly, introduced a bill into this parliament that puts very rudimentary, very basic obligations that would apply to these people. One of them is an obligation to disclose if a club membership has been taken out. That is not a particularly onerous duty that is to be imposed onto these people. And there are a bunch of other very simple obligations. I regret to report to the Senate, as the other coalition members and senators have stated today, that, at just 17 pages, the bill needs to be amended to ensure that it meets the standard that the community would expect. The community would expect that there would be mandatory monitoring of criminals, that there would be mandatory monitoring of murderers and rapists who are in our community now, who have been released through a quirk in the law. It is hugely regrettable that the government have gone soft here in terms of the visa conditions that are to apply under the government's legislation. A 17-page bill is not a very large bill in the scheme of the work that this parliament does, and it is very troubling that this bill has taken almost a week to develop. As I said, it is a very weak bill.

That's why our amendments to impose mandatory sentences for serious breaches of visa conditions and to put in place mandatory electronic surveillance, monitoring and curfews are an entirely reasonable proposition, because that is what the community expects. The community would not expect there to be hardened criminals walking around the streets just because they have been subject to a quirk or loophole in the legal system. There's no situation in this country where an Australian citizen would expect to be sitting on a train next to a murderer or a rapist just because there was a loophole. They would expect that a murderer or a rapist would be serving a custodial sentence. That is the standard that the Australian people expect.

In my opinion, this will affect the confidence that the Australian people may have in the long-running and very successful migration program, because if the Australian people feel that the government is incapable of protecting their interests and their families then there will be a loss of confidence in the system. The other speakers have already catalogued the revolting cases that have been applied here in terms of some of the crimes that have been committed. I won't seek to detain us any longer, but it is hugely regrettable that it has taken the government so long to do this.

I have to say it reminds me a lot of the last time that Labor was the government of Australia. They were very poor when it came to economic management, and, in relation to the management of the migration system, I have to say that the last Labor government lost the confidence of the Australian people on issues like this. So this is a key test for the government. Will they be prepared to entertain some of the very reasonable suggestions that we make in our amendments? It's just not good enough that Australian people should be exposed to murderers and rapists in their day-to-day lives. The bill should be strengthened, and I urge the Senate to take this course of action.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. I want to compliment my colleague Senator Bragg for his very fine summation of the issues involved. In particular, he went to an area that I think needs exploration and consideration in this place, which is the potential massive loophole, as Senator Bragg described it. It is a huge moral hazard that the legislature—this place and the other place—now faces following the High Court's decision. There is now an active incentive in the system for people to appear to engineer a stateless situation to achieve an outcome. If you followed the Greens' prescription—and, quite frankly, seemingly the Labor Party's prescription until 24 hours ago—you would have effectively had almost no control as a country on those people entering society.

Whilst those opposite may disagree with that, I'm going to go to an article published in the West Australian. A journalist, Caleb Runciman, spent a night at a Thornlie motel. He went to the motel after the decision to release inmates from Yongah Hill—inmates that were supposedly, according to the Labor government, going to be closely monitored. He decided to check into that motel and see what would happen. Far from it being closely monitored, he found absolutely no monitoring at all. There were around 30 detainees staying at the motel. Twelve, after a night's sleep at the motel, were taken to the airport, where they jumped on planes to the eastern states. How much knowledge, control and scrutiny of those movements was there? We don't know.

On the night they were released, four actually sourced a car before hitching a ride away from the motel in the middle of the night. Is that being 'closely monitored'—sourcing a car and hitching a ride away from the motel in the middle of the night? According to this journalist, again, the gates to the motel were constantly unlocked during the night and, in his words, the property became 'a hive of visitor activity late into the night'. This is extraordinary. This is extraordinary in this country.

Remember—for those listening—the government had had a six-month warning that this judgement from the High Court was a possibility. Later in the article—it's a long article, and I urge all those listening to go and read it—the journalist says that when he arrived at the hotel there were no staff or security present, none. There were just the detainees and perhaps some other guests.

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

Lucky them!

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very lucky them! I wonder if they were informed about what was going on, Senator Scarr. So there were just the detainees and possibly other guests. Again, the next day they were driven to the airport, where they flew to the eastern states. That was under what security, what surveillance, what requirements for ensuring the safety of the Australian people? We really have no idea.

Let's go through the time line. The government was given warning that this decision could be made many, many months ago and did absolutely nothing. The High Court handed down its decision last Wednesday. My good friend Senator James Paterson, the shadow minister for home affairs, on Thursday, immediately after the decision was handed down, called for a legislated response. What did we hear from the government? Absolutely nothing. They had to wait for the High Court to deliver its full judgement in an indeterminate amount of time into the future, possibly months. Senator Watt in fact said, 'We're not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released.' So, according to Senator Watt, the government's immediate response was going to be to sit on its hands for the months, or at least many weeks—possibly months—it was going to take for the full judgement to be released by the High Court.

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

They'd still be doing nothing.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They'd still be doing nothing today. They'd be doing nothing in a week, they'd be doing nothing in three weeks, they'd be doing nothing in a month. That was the government's plan. It's on the record, and nobody opposite can deny it.

When this issue first arose, as I said, on Wednesday last week, the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Paterson, immediately called for a legislated response. On Thursday, the government told us that the individual in the High Court decision had been released, but, when asked about the potential release of other individuals in the cohort, Senator Watt said, 'We're not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released.' But, in fact, we found out on Friday that they had been acting in the sense that large numbers of high-risk individuals were being released. So they weren't going to make any response until they had the full decision from the High Court, but they were releasing the detainees.

On Monday Minister Giles told us that 80 individuals had been released subject to a range of strict mandatory visa conditions, yet yesterday Senator Wong admitted that the consequences of breaching these new visa conditions were ultimately unenforceable because breaching a visa requires that an individual be detained pending deportation, which the High Court ruled is not applicable for this cohort of people. So, when they were released, many of them, I understand, were released with no visas at all. They were just released—open the door, off you go. Now, if you haven't got a visa, you can't have any visa conditions, so you can't have any consequences for breaching visa conditions. That will be remedied, hopefully, in this bill—and, as everyone knows, we've only received the bill this morning, and we are still looking at a series of amendments.

To again remind those listening: this is not merely a cohort of asylum seekers, as some on the other side like to pretend. These are people who have been involved in serious crime or serious activities of violence. As Senator Cash talked about, in this cohort are contract killers, child rapists, murderers, people who have conducted terrorist-like acts and people who have been engaged in the most egregious cases of domestic violence. Again I point out that those on this side, immediately the court handed down its decision, called for a legislated response, because that is what we are here for.

Now, there is a separation of powers. There is a role for an independent court system, and obviously we all respect the role and the rulings of the High Court. But we are also legislators. We are here to deal with situations like this and deal with them in a way that is timely and upholds our first responsibility as senators, as members of parliament: to protect the Australian people. That is why we are here. The fact that this moral hazard, this loophole, has been created in our visa system and our processing of people coming from overseas does require and effective response.

The government failed the first test immediately. They were planning to sit on their hands for months until the full decision was handed down by the High Court—unacceptable for any government to take that sort of response. And now, finally, dragged kicking and screaming, they have brought forward legislation, again keeping parliamentarians in the dark for as long as possible. As Senator Cash said, she would have been here last night—she would have been here all night—if that's what it would have taken to see the bill earlier. But, no, it was this morning—handed a copy of the bill at 7.15 am.

Of course we will support the bill, but we will also look to strengthen the bill, because it simply isn't strong enough. There are some obvious improvements that can be made that we will be moving. But, as I said, we will ultimately support the legislation. We sincerely hope that the government is serious, as Senator Wong said, about—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.30, the Senate will now move to senators' statements.