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

My question is the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, Senator Watt. During the High Court proceedings on the NZYQ case on 2 June this year Justice Gleeson strongly signalled that the court may rule against indefinite detention stating: 'It seemed to me that I ought not let this directions hearing go past without acknowledging that the purpose of his detention is for removal, and yet it seems that, on one view of the facts, capacity for removal is likely diminishing from very little to none. I draw that to your attention as a factual matter that may ultimately be relevant.' She also made other comments of a similar nature. Why did the government not immediately prepare legislation in anticipation of this likely contingency instead of waiting until dangerous criminals had already been released into the community?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Paterson. I am aware of those remarks that were made by Justice Gleeson in the High Court. I'm also aware of some remarks that Senator Paterson made in this chamber the other day while Senator Wong was answering a question. He interjected and made the point that the High Court's ruling overturned 20 years of precedent. It seems that at least at the time Senator Paterson made those interjections, he was aware that a High Court decision had been in place with a clear ruling on this matter of law for 20 years and that the decision that ultimately was received by the full bench of the High Court overturned those 20 years of precedents. For Senator Paterson to come in now and pretend that he had a crystal ball that this decision was going to end up the way it did is completely disingenuous and goes against the comments he made earlier in the week.

In addition to that, what we also know is the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, knew for a number of years that this was an issue when he was the Minister for Home Affairs, and he did not do anything to address the issue either. Our urgent legislation that we introduced today—

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

Senator Paterson, on a point of order?

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

It's on direct relevance: the questions was about comments that Justice Gleeson made in June this year. Last time I checked, Peter Dutton was not in government in June this year—you were.

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

The minister is being relevant to your question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's interesting that the opposition is so defensive of Mr Dutton's record as the Minister for Home Affairs. He was also the home affairs minister who presided over a completely broken migration system, which was exposed in the Nixon report.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, my point of order is on direct relevance. Clearly the minister is not being directly relevant to the specifics of the question Senator Paterson asked. President, I'd urge you to engage more frequently when a minister is so directly pivoting to comments on the opposition or on matters that are extraneous to the specifics of the question and to more proactively draw the minister back to the question that has been asked.

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

Senator Birmingham, I think I do respond, and I was about to respond to Minister Watt when I saw you stand, so I took your point of order. Minister Watt, I refer you back to the question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has just been drawn to my attention that in fact Senator Paterson is misrepresented the remarks of Justice Gleeson as well. Justice Gleeson's comments in June did not indicate the likely judgement of the High Court. She said, 'In a sense what you seem to be saying is that his position is utterly hopeless, that there is nothing that could be done to ready him from removal.' That is far from that the High Court full bench was going to end up making the decision it made. Notwithstanding that, we have produced urgent legislation within a very short time, and we invite the opposition to work with us to get it done.

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

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

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

When did the government first become aware that penalties for breaches of visa conditions by this cohort would be unenforceable given that the ultimate consequence of a breach is detention, which has just been ruled unconstitutional by the High Court?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What matters here is that the government is taking action to fix this problem.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have barely started answering the question.

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

Senator Paterson, on a point of order?

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

Madam President, it's on direct relevance. The minister is right that he had barely started answering the question, but he indicated in his first few words that he is not going to attempt to engage in the question, which is: when did the government first become aware?

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

Senator Paterson, the minister had just got to his feet. You have reminded him of the question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government first became aware of the High Court's decision and the implications that flowed from it when the High Court delivered their decision, and, as I've said before, they haven't delivered their reasons yet. Notwithstanding that, we have moved expeditiously to fix this issue. We've invited the opposition to help us with this, but all they've continued to do all week is to play politics with the issue. What we've seen from Mr Dutton, in usual form, is him trying to play politics and trying to divide people rather than working constructively with the government to try to find a solution. We know that is the way he operates. We know that is the way the coalition operates, rather than actually working constructively to deal with the High Court decision that overturned 20 years of precedent and that now needs to be fixed, and we're committed to fixing it.

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

Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

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

When did the government first direct the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to draft legislation to address the serious risks to community safety which follow from the High Court's ruling?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've personally heard both Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil say this week that the legal implications of this decision were being considered before a decision came down. There were contingency plans being developed. That's what led, for instance, to us imposing a number of conditions on the people that were released into the community, extremely quickly, as soon as they were released into the community—things like reporting to police, avoiding—

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

Madam President, do I really need to make a point of order on direct relevance here? I asked about the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The minister has not mentioned those words or when the advice was first given to them.

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

Minister Wong?

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

The question goes to the drafting of legislation. The minister's first sentence went to the answers that have been given by the relevant ministers in the other place on that topic, so I submit that his answer is clearly relevant. If the opposition doesn't want to hear about the other measures for community safety, I think that says something about their political motives.

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

Senator Paterson, I believe the minister is being relevant. I will, however, listen to the remainder of his answer, and, if he strays, I'll draw him back to the question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has now introduced legislation to deal with this emerging issue. We have sought to work with the opposition to have that legislation passed, and Mr Dutton, Senator Paterson and every member of the coalition has a decision to make. Are they going to continue playing politics on this matter—

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

Minister Watt, I will draw you back to the question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Are they going to continue playing politics or work with us to make the community safer?