Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance debate is an opportunity to really reflect on a government that clearly, in the eyes of the Australian public, is not only a disappointment but now is making grave mistakes, the consequences of which will likely be felt, sadly and tragically, by the Australian people. The fact is that the immigration minister of the day needs to deal with cases on a regular basis. We're a migrant population. We have people moving across our borders every day. But the Australian public rely on the minister for immigration and, of course, the Prime Minister to be in a position to make decisions in our country's best interests, to make decisions to allow people to stay in the right circumstances and for them to be deported from our country in very quick fashion if they commit offences or on other grounds they breach the migration laws. That's why this minister stands condemned today. It's why this minister's position is untenable and it's why, if we had a strong Prime Minister and not a weak Prime Minister, he would have already been sacked.

If he had any self-respect of dignity, he already would have taken the decision to resign himself. That's the reality.

When we look at what is before us, we see these cases are referred regularly to the High Court. The minister for immigration is the most litigated minister in the Commonwealth. In relation to this particular case—NZYQ—the minister for immigration, as we now know, given that the High Court has published details, facts and reasons in their judgement, conceded a point which he should not have conceded. He conceded a point erroneously in agreeing to the court that NZYQ had no prospect of return. In that circumstance, the High Court has legitimate reason to find as they did, but the concession should never have been made. Had the concession never been made, the High Court would never have found in favour of NZYQ.

Now, this is an individual case, and individual cases can be part of case law and part of considerations and appeals over a long period of time. Some of them are consequential. Some of them apply only to the facts in relation to that matter. This case is hugely consequential because it has led to a decision—again, erroneously taken by the minister—to release now 142 additional criminals, people of significant criminal histories, people who have committed sexual offences against children and against women, people who are members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, people who have harmed the community, people who have killed Australians. This minister, as it turns out now that we read the High Court's words, was not instructed by the High Court to release those individuals. There's no reason, we now know, why those people should be released into the community, why they're now at large in the community.

In some cases, the minister went even further in his negligence and released people without ankle bracelets, so there was no comprehension of their location, where they were—in relation to those that had committed sexual offences against children, whether they were in the proximity of schools, preschools or childcare centres. In some cases, at least initially, given the failings in the first wave of legislation, the conditions of the visa release were completely unenforceable. That was another failing of this minister.

This Prime Minister sits idly by. It's telling that he's not in the chamber today to defend his minister. Does he have confidence in this minister? How can he have confidence in this minister? There are people who have been released unnecessarily into the community, and that rests on the shoulders of the minister for immigration. When the minister comes to this dispatch box, he should issue to the Australian public an unqualified apology. He should hang his head in shame and apologise because it's clear that this minister has put Australians at risk.

And it's not just the 142 that we're talking about now. There is the potential for hundreds more to be released in similar circumstances because we have a minister who is following his ideological inclination, not who is acting in our country's best interest. That's what we're seeing here at the moment. That's the reality of what we're dealing with. I don't believe his position is tenable, and I fear for Australians who may be the next victim at the hands of one of these vicious criminals. I think that is the concern that many Australians have—let's be very honest.

When the government first came into this parliament—remember when the Prime Minister was off overseas again—they said: 'We've got this decision from the High Court, but we don't yet have the reasons handed down, so we're acting in advance of finding out the true advice from the High Court. But there's nothing we can do about it. There's no legislation.

There's no ability for us to legislate and to try and keep these people in custody, to try and apply conditions or to try and impose a regime that would go some way to providing security or safety to the Australian public.' As it turns out, because the coalition took a stance and moved six amendments and convinced the government that that there was legislation that was possible, they eventually adopted the position, but only because the Prime Minister was out of the country. The Acting Prime Minister approached me to say: 'Okay, we admit that we got it wrong. We'll take up your suggestions, and we'll support your amendments through the parliament.'

What did those amendments provide? Well, the minister didn't have the capacity to contemplate that paedophiles should be kept from schools. He didn't have the capacity to know that those people who had committed serious offences or murder shouldn't be contacting the victims of crime or the family of a deceased victim of crime—and there were other measures that we put in place. That's what we put in place that Labor never had the wit to imagine. I fear what would have happened had the government not adopted the proposals put forward by the coalition.

We've got a situation at the moment where there's another bill that's been pulled today from the Senate. That's the citizenship bill. The government again came to us in a panic this week and said: 'We want this bill passed through both houses on Monday.' We sat down and had a briefing. We said, 'What's the urgency in relation to the citizenship bill?' It doesn't apply to Benbrika, the most dangerous terrorist convicted in our courts. It doesn't apply to the other three high-profile terrorists who have been convicted and who have offended against Australians. It doesn't have any application to cases which are before the court at the moment. It doesn't have any applicability to a case where there is a pending sentence. It doesn't have any applicability, we were advised, in relation to a matter that's about to be rushed before the courts. So why such urgency? Because the government was looking for political cover; that's why. They were driven by a political imperative to try and cover up their mess, to try and somehow look strong by driving through, in a hurried fashion, national security legislation.

As it turns out, there are deep flaws in the citizenship bill as well. We have made a number of recommendations and a number of amendments, which include stripping paedophiles of citizenship. Do you know what the government has done? They've gone to water on that issue, and they've pulled the bill from the Senate today. They had the opportunity to get our support today to pass that bill in an amended form which would see terrorists, those who have committed acts of espionage against our country, child sex offenders, those who have been convicted of extraterritorial murder of Australians and those who have committed many other offences of a similar character lose their Australian citizenship. What happened? Here we are on Thursday, the last sitting day of this week, and the bill still hasn't passed. The advice of Monday that the bill had to be passed urgently has lapsed. The government sought our support this morning to suspend standing orders in the Senate to bring the bill on, to which we agreed. Crickets! Nothing!

If the Australian public thinks the wheels are falling off this Albanese government, if the Australian public is losing confidence in their Prime Minister, they are spot on. Their instinct is dead right. This Prime Minister is taking our country in the wrong direction. He is causing harm in the Australian community. He is a weak and failed Prime Minister.

See this speech in context