I thank the member for the question, because we are talking about someone who has engaged in views and planning that are beyond contempt. The first way and the most powerful way that we are able to keep the community safe from people like that is through the criminal offences that we've established. He was sentenced in 2021. He was found guilty of acting in preparation for a terrorist attack. We had allowed that to have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and he was given four years and six months. He was convicted of preparing to enter into a foreign country to engage in hostilities. On that, again, we had set a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and he was given six years. The full aggregated sentence he received was seven years and four months. The non-parole period he was given was five years and six months. The most challenge-proof way to keep the community safe is for someone like that to be in prison. And I think we would all have similar questions about the gap between the maximum penalties we had made available and where this has landed.

There are two different methods that then become available. One is to be able, with much more limited legal power, when someone has been released at the end of those sentences—much more limited power—to try to restrain that person further. The first is the reference that you gave with respect to the Department of Home Affairs, which has, particularly through various decisions that have come through the High Court, very high thresholds that you have to be able to meet. Had we been able to meet those thresholds, the Department of Home Affairs would have been in court the next day. The second method that's available is for the Australian Federal Police to seek a control order. I am pleased to say they did go to court and seek a control order, and I'm pleased to advise the house that, earlier today, the court agreed to allow that interim control order.