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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

Well, it is almost four o'clock. We're actually about an hour past question time and, quite legitimately, we have just heard an hour's worth of debate from various senators about failings of this government to live up to its commitments of transparency, openness, a new approach to government, that we heard in the days following the last election but which have been so seriously absent ever since. Today, in asking very legitimate questions around the government's handling of the asylum seeker issue, we again see a very brittle approach from this Labor government, a claim that they hide behind shields of not wanting to politicise this very serious national security issue and then literally, in the same breath, attack Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, who hasn't been in government for 18 months. I should remind those opposite of that fact.

The government had carriage of the particular High Court case all through its existence. They argued the case in front of the High Court. They are the ones who are responsible for anticipating and reacting to the judgement of the High Court—two very important words. Governments are not just about responding; they're also about anticipating. There were very clear signals six months before the case was handed down that this was a live risk. The government, on the evidence that we have before us at the moment anyway, did absolutely nothing. Then the decision was handed down, and the government froze in the headlights for a week. It's now almost a month that the opposition has been calling for a preventive detention regime in this country—almost a month—and, quite legitimately, we asked today whether the government was going to apologise to the Australian people for its handling of this matter.

And, no, of course the government can't apologise. They've forgotten all about their new approach to government. They've forgotten all about transparency, openness.

This morning at a press conference, the Attorney-General lost it and described a very legitimate question from a journalist as 'absurd', in a highly aggressive manner. No wonder the A-G lost it. He is dealing with two other ministers who, quite frankly, have made a disastrous, shambolic response in their handling of this issue. The ministers have been called on to resign, quite legitimately, because their handling of this issue has let the Australian people down. In the end, that is the determinant of whether you should stay on as a minister or not. Letting the Australian people down in a matter of national security, of personal safety, such as this is an extraordinary failure of ministerial duty.

We heard in one of the questions that the court decision really meant that a single person needed to be released. But the government overreacted. They didn't know what to do. They massively overreacted and released 148 people into the community, providing them with transportation and accommodation. There was reporting in the West Australian of asylum seekers released in my home state of Western Australia who, in less than 24 hours, had been put up in accommodation, had been driving the streets of Perth in a car procured who knows how and then early the next morning were on flights to Sydney. It's extraordinary. Is it at all surprising that some of those people—at least three that we know about—have reoffended and have done so over matters that are of a very serious nature? These are legitimate questions, and the government's response is to attack the Leader of the Opposition. It just shows how weak they are.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not surprised that those opposite are trying to distance themselves from their leader, Mr Dutton, and deny the record of their former period in government. After all, they are the party of robodebt, where they constructed the most egregious scheme, an illegal scheme that sought to take away the rights of Australians and that served on its own people—under Mr Morrison, with the leadership of Mr Dutton, right there at the top—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr has a point of order.

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

Relevance: how is robodebt in any way relevant to the migration issues which we've been discussing?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator O'Neill was using it as an allegory for the judgement of the government of the day, so I'm going to allow her some latitude.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Scarr for paying such attention and you, Deputy President, for your elegant explanation of exactly my intention.

You either believe in the law and you support the law or you don't. When you're the government, you are impelled to act within the boundary of the law. We're talking about citizenship. I've attended many citizenship ceremonies. When you're born in this country, you don't come out with these magic words—maybe by the time you're three or four you might be able to say them—but this is what Australian citizens undertaking a pledge say:

From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its People, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

What we've got being constructed, in a totally mischievous way, a fearmongering way, an anxiety-inducing, mental-health-harming way, is an opposition who are refusing to accept that fundamental responsibility that is a responsibility of citizenship, and that is to uphold the law. The law that we have derives from the Constitution, and I happen to have a pocket copy of that.

Let's find out what the federal judicature actually has to do and what the federal justice system relies on:

Chapter III of the Constitution (sections 71-80) provides for the establishment of the High Court of Australia. One of the High Court's principal functions is to decide disputes about the meaning of the Constitution. For example, it is the High Court which ultimately determines whether an Act passed by the Commonwealth Parliament is within the legislative powers of the Commonwealth.

That is in our Constitution. The High Court, having considered the matter about citizenship cessation and migration, made a determination that upended what everybody in this place had thought was law for 20 years. When they did that, change had to be undertaken. Within one week and one day, this government had acted. Today, here in this parliament, the Australian government was seeking to get passed the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 to give the Minister for Home Affairs the capacity to make an application for a court to make an order ceasing the Australian citizenship of a person who is also a national or citizen of another country. That's what fundamentally has to change. Prior to the High Court's determination in recent weeks, ministers were actually able to make a declaration. Ministers operated. That has now been found to be outside of the law—unconstitutional, at odds with the Constitution.

The mischief-making of those in the opposition, who have made claims—once again, immediately after question time—that only one person needed to be released, completely misinterprets and misrepresents the reality of what a government is impelled to do in this situation. The Labor government is always going to look after our citizens. We take that responsibility profoundly seriously. That is why this piece of legislation that has come before the parliament this afternoon—it has already been passed in the Senate and over in the House—will go ahead, I hope, with the support of those opposite, despite their mischief-making. It's time to stop mucking around, get on with the job and keep Australians safe.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers to all questions from coalition senators today. Can I say that I'm really disturbed by what I've heard today—the responses here and also to the questions that I asked. We have an Attorney-General who has deemed that he is not accountable to the Australian people to respond to serious questions as to what has transpired here. I'm going to read what he said:

I will not be apologising for upholding the law. I will not be apologising for pursuing the rule of law and I will not be apologising for acting...

…   …   …

Do not interrupt! I will not be apologising ... for acting in accordance with a High Court decision. Your question is an absurd one …

This was an attack on a journalist who was doing her job. If Mr Dreyfus, our Attorney-General had been doing his own job, then the journalist would not have been compelled to ask these questions. I am deeply concerned that he berated her and admonished her for daring to hold him to account. That is unacceptable.

I'm going to lead on to the excuses that have been used here.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: per standing order 193, it is highly disorderly for a member to attribute imputations of improper motives.

The senator is entitled to make her observations, but to impugn the motives of the Attorney-General is beyond what is required in the standing orders, and I ask that she withdraw any reflections.

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

On the point of order, from my perspective, my good colleague has couched her words appropriately. She has not mentioned the motive of the Attorney whatsoever. She's simply given an accurate characterisation, which is for everyone to see, as to how the Attorney acted.

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

Senator Scarr, do not increase the imputation. Senator Kovacic, I will return the call to you. Can you be mindful of the standing orders and not make such imputations in your remarks.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my understanding that I didn't breach any standing orders, but thank you. Going back to my concerns and what I want to take note of, there was further commentary from those on the other side that the opposition is seeking to politicise something that wasn't a government decision. That's not what we're doing here. We're talking about the fact that the government didn't actually do their jobs. They didn't do anything, when they needed to do something. That's the problem here.

They didn't protect the Australian public. The commentary from Senator O'Neill before I stood was that the Labor government is always going to look after its own citizens. What about the woman who was allegedly sexually assaulted in Adelaide? What about her? Was she protected? No, she was not. And that is what this is all about. It's the fact that Australians were not protected. Senator O'Neill also stated that it is the fundamental responsibility of a government to uphold the law. I put it that it's the fundamental responsibility of a government to protect its citizens, and this has not transpired here.

It has been a month since the High Court decision on NZYQ, and this government has been caught flatfooted. My colleague spoke of the fact that it is the job of a government to anticipate and react, not just to follow and not just to do. Again, this government didn't do anything to anticipate or to react to the decision of the High Court and has waited almost a month in a bumbling shambles to deliver some form of mechanism to protect Australians.

What we do know is that Minister O'Neil failed to prepare for this expected High Court loss and then advised that she was told that she would probably win. She also claimed that legislation wasn't necessary, until the coalition wrote tough laws and amendments for her. In November she claimed that the coalition's preventative detention proposal was utterly impossible, but now she says that the parliament won't rise until that is legislated. Meanwhile, we have some 147 hardened criminals released into our community while Clare O'Neil, Andrew Giles and the Prime Minister can't get their act together. That is what is absurd.

The question from the journalist today was not absurd. The concerns from the coalition are not absurd. The inaction of this government is what is deeply concerning, deeply troubling and completely absurd. Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles have completely and utterly botched this process, and our Prime Minister is silent on it. (Time expired)

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite love to talk the big, tough talk on national security and on keeping citizens safe. But let's not pretend that they do anything to keep Australians safe, because while the 'no-alition' is seeking to spread fear and grip people, doing nothing in offering a solution or coming to the table, the government is acting swiftly. We're doing everything we can by prioritising the safety of every single Australian.

The quick passage of the legislation through parliament that we've seen over the last few weeks was necessary in order to strengthen the visa conditions and impose criminal penalties, where needed, to keep Australians safe. It's just mind-blowing to hear those opposite claiming what the intentions of the government are, when we can pull out their records and see for ourselves what they did not very long ago.

If you haven't caught the memo yet, community safety remains a top priority for the Albanese government following the decision of the High Court in case NZYQ. It is disappointing but, of course, not surprising that those opposite are using this decision for political pointscoring. By voting against the bill, those opposite actually failed to walk the tough talk. Instead of providing an action plan or even coming to the table, all you hear from the 'no-alition' is no, no, no. Mr Dutton and Mr Morrison's Liberal leftovers are always looking for political advantage, wedging a divide and fearmongering, but they never have any solutions to offer. You'd think they'd have a basic understanding of the separation of powers and the role of the High Court in our system of government, but obviously they don't. I don't have the crayons or time to draw it out for you, so I'll simply say this in layman's terms: the High Court ruled that a scheme introduced by the coalition was unconstitutional. It's not that hard—it really isn't.

Those opposite need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask their current leader, Mr Dutton, where his priorities were. As Senator Brockman said, 'Governments are not only about reacting but about anticipating.' So the question begs to be asked: where were Mr Dutton's priorities when, under his watch, we saw the skyrocketing of sexual exploitation of migrants, organised crime and people trafficking? It's really evident that Mr Dutton and the 'no-alition' have nothing positive to offer to this country, its national security or the safety of the citizens. You're just saying no, no, no and opposing everything that will make life better for Australians.

What Australians are seriously going through is cozzie livs—cost of living, just in case you're wondering what that means. We are a government that understand the pressures that everyday Australians are facing and we're implementing measures to deliver targeted cost-of-living relief that, of course, those opposite have opposed at every turn. It's been an absolute disgrace. If those opposite really care, as they claim, about easing the cost of living, they would've supported the Albanese government's policies that have provided the relief in the last 17 months that we've been in government.

We won't stand here and have those opposite—the same people that gave us a trillion dollars of debt and broke the budget—lecture us about fiscal responsibility. I can go on and on about the incredible measures that we've delivered that people look back on and say, 'Wow! The government's actually doing its job—something we were not used to in the last nine years.' Something as simple as referring to the most recent monthly CPI indicator shows inflation being moderated at 4.9 per cent, which is much lower than the 6.1 per cent we inherited at the time of our election last year. So there it is. You really have nothing to say or show for it; you're just all talk and no walk.

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

Right, there you go. What we should do is maybe ask the Australian people what they think. What do the Australian people think about what has happened over the course of the last months? What did the Australian people think about the fact that about 140 hardened criminals—a contract killer, child rapists, murderers, sex offenders and paedophiles—had been released into the community?

Then we were accused of fear-mongering. And then, in the weeks since they were released, three of them have been charged already.

The Australian public are the human face of this public policy failure. I wonder if they think there should be an apology. I reckon they'd probably say, 'Yes, there needs to be an apology.' I wonder if the people who have been subjected to those alleged offences think there should be an apology. I reckon they'd think there probably should be an apology. Yet all we've seen today from the government is ridiculous excuses for their incompetence.

Let me tell you: I don't need crayons to understand the Australian Constitution. I give my respects to the late Professor Lumb, who taught me constitutional law about 32 years ago.

The fact of the matter is: if you look at the High Court case that was brought down, back in March, the Australian government and the lawyers acting for the individual—the convicted child rapist—agreed a set of facts that said that there was no reasonable prospect of this individual being deported anywhere; they agreed that, back in March. That is when the red flag went up. That is when all of the legislation that has been passed or will be passed over the course of the month following that judgement should have come to this chamber—five or six months ago, before the people were released, not a month later. The horse has bolted. And the gate was left open by the Albanese Labor government. The action should have been taken months ago.

We've shown how quickly we can move when we need, as a chamber, to protect the Australian people. The biggest apology due—the apology that should be granted by the Albanese Labor government—is for their failure to act in that period between March and when the decision was brought down. When the red flag went up—that was the time for action, and that was the period in time when the Albanese Labor government failed to act. That is why they should apologise to the people of Australia for their incompetence and failure to act. This High Court judgement didn't come out of nowhere. The red flag had gone up in March. And that is when the Labor Albanese government should have acted.

Question agreed to.