Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've received a letter from the honourable Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the government to keep Australians safe.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have seen this government engage in the extraordinary action of releasing 83 hardcore criminals into the community. That includes, we understand from what the government has had to say, three murderers—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry to interrupt, Manager for Opposition Business. The member for Warringah, on a point of order?

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Today is the crossbench MPI.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my understanding that there was no crossbench MPI lodged. If there was—

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was an MPI lodged, Mr Speaker.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised by the clerk that the MPI was not lodged. Given that one has been accepted and that I have approved the MPI today, we will continue. I will investigate and report back to the member for Kooyong. I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business in continuation.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We understand that three murderers and several sex offenders have been released into the community. The Solicitor-General told the High Court that those impacted by the decision included a number of people convicted of murder and serious sex offences against adults and children as well as drug offenders and people smugglers. It's known that those who have been released into the community include Aliyawar Yawari, a violent sex predator with the record of attacking elderly women in their homes so chilling a judge branded him a danger to the Australian community. Mohammed Rafiq was sentenced in April 2018 to seven years and six months in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault. Sirul Azhar Umar was convicted in Malaysia over the infamous 2006 murder of a 28-year-old Mongolian translator and model, Altantuya Shaariibuu.

It is for these reasons the opposition has been pressing the government to find out what its plan is in these circumstances to keep Australians safe. We've asked a series of questions of the minister for immigration and of the Prime Minister, and the answers have been deeply inadequate. The fundamental question that we have sought to get the answer to—and I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration for the very important work that they've been doing on behalf of the Australian people—is: what is the government's plan to deal with this matter and, in particular, why had it not prepared for this scenario? Why had it not examined the options for legislation?

What is remarkable is that the Prime Minister has just been given an opportunity to calmly and rationally explain to the Australian people what he intends to do in relation to that problem, how he is directing his ministers to develop and introduce as a matter of urgency legislation so that this matter can be legislated as quickly as possible. The opposition is absolutely prepared to support the government in whatever way is necessary. We've indicated we're prepared to be here for whatever time it takes as soon as this legislation is brought into the parliament, because this is fundamentally a matter of the safety of Australians.

It is not a novel proposition that the laws governing the matters of immigration, including the treatment of those who have significant character issues, that there are challenges in the courts to these laws. Indeed, it happens on a pretty consistent basis. Any competent government, any competent minister or any competent Prime Minister with a passion and a commitment to keeping Australians safe—which is, after all, the very first responsibility and priority of the Australian government—would have had legislation ready to go so that, in the event that there were to be an unfavourable decision from the High Court, there were options available to keep Australians safe other than the course of conduct which the minister has evidently taken, which is simply to throw up his hands and say: 'I've got no other option. I am releasing 81 dangerous, hardcore criminals into the Australian community.'

Indeed, we know from his update to the parliament today that that number has now reached 83. We've sought answers as to why decisions were taken in relation to that group and not the remainder of the 91. We're still seeking adequate explanations on that. But, based upon what has been disclosed by this government to date, what is abundantly clear is that the government was caught flat-footed. It did not have a plan. Frankly, it is shocking that on a matter that is so fundamental to the safety of Australians that the government simply did not have a plan and is now being left to scramble.

We did not get any clarity from the Prime Minister in his remarks. The opposition gave him an opportunity to reassure the Australian people that there was a clear plan, that they were calmly dealing with it. Instead, we heard the Prime Minister using a fair bit of that time to simply engage in political attacks against this side of the House. He entirely failed to live up to the moment and provide Australians the calm reassurance that they would want to hear, that there is a plan to deal with these 83 hardened criminals who have been released into the community after all of the evidence that's coming out. This includes what we've heard from the Labor Premier of Western Australia. He said on radio yesterday that seven of the 32 people dumped at a Thornlie motel on Saturday have had reporting conditions imposed on them by WA police. But it does raise a broader question about the rest of them. We've seen serious reports in the West Australian newspaper about what's now occurring at locations where these hardcore offenders have been released into the community—drugs, alcohol and many other things. It's the absolute opposite of a clear plan to keep Australians safe.

This is occurring at a time when we are also seeing shocking threats to public safety in Australia. In the Melbourne suburb of Caulfield we've seen a highly provocative, dangerous and threatening demonstration by Hamas sympathisers, deliberately held outside a synagogue at a time when a service was underway.

On the evening of 9 October, in Sydney, we saw the disgraceful scenes on the forecourt of the Opera House when the Opera House was, as was entirely appropriate, lit up in the colours of the flag of Israel to express the solidarity of the Australian people with the people of Israeli after the appalling Hamas terrorist attack which saw some 1,400 innocent Israeli men, women and children murdered, appalling reports of atrocious brutality and well over 200 Israelis captured and now held in captivity in Gaza. What we need to see is those hostages released as soon as possible. Of course, Israel has an absolute right to defend itself.

This is touching communities all around Australia. In my own community, in my own electorate, Masada College is a remarkable school and contributes richly to our community. It's a very welcoming institution. I've visited it many times. As well as having a large number of Jewish children, it has children of Korean background, Chinese background and many other backgrounds sharing education, which is in the very highest traditions of not just the Jewish community of Sydney's North Shore but the Jewish religion more broadly. This fine institution recently approached a business seeking to hire some games for children. The owner of that business refused in appalling terms and then posted that on social media. I've spoken to the principal. It's understandable that that school is very concerned.

These are the kinds of safety issues which are threatening and causing great concern to the Jewish community around Australia, and I think, more broadly, they cause concern to the community when we see the kinds of demonstrations that we've seen. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we need to see the Prime Minister provide a lead and keep Australians safe.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll speak to the substance of the issue, but first I want to place on record how completely disgraceful I find the opposition's trying to link what is a really serious issue, antisemitism in our community, with a High Court decision which is profoundly and thoroughly unrelated to it and somehow trying to make politics out of this.

Surely we, as a parliament, and those opposite, as an opposition, are better than that. I find trying to take the human experience of people in our country who are seriously feeling under threat and are seriously being discriminated against and trying to use that to score points on the government disgraceful. I find that crass. I see some disgusting things in this parliament, but I have to say that this is right up there.

It tells us a lot about the way in which the opposition leader would run this country if he were ever given the opportunity to do so. What we know about the opposition leader is that the way this disgraceful politicisation has occurred in the chamber this afternoon is exactly on point with the sort of leadership that we have come to expect from him. What we see every day, throughout a 22-year political career, from the Leader of the Opposition is a constant instinct for division. That is what he tries to do every time an issue comes before this parliament. It's division, it's politicisation, it's hypocrisy and, frankly, in the work that I do, it is sheer incompetence. That is exactly what the country does not need right now. What I do agree with the opposition on is that there are serious issues in our country right now with social cohesion. The impact of the war in the Middle East is causing serious issues and deep-seated emotional reactions from people who are living in our country. They are reacting because of what they see overseas. They have deeply personal connections into this region, and it is affecting them and their lives here.

We heard about what happened in Caulfield on the weekend. Antisemitism has no place in our country. One of the beautiful things about Australia, one of the reasons that our nation is such a beautiful country, the very best in the world, is that we are able to live in a cohesive community yet celebrate those differences that make us so strong. We as a political party and as a government condemn antisemitism and stand with Jewish Australians as they experience what is an unspeakable rise in this horrible and one of the oldest forms of hatred in the world.

Many of us represent communities which have large Muslim populations, and I am one of them. The Islamophobia that is experienced by those communities is also real. If you want to hear about discrimination in this country, sit down with a woman who wears a hijab, and you will hear things that you would not believe are occurring in this beautiful nation: women being spat on on public transport; women being abused because they choose to wear a headscarf. We as a political party and as a government have a consistent principles based commitment: we oppose discrimination. We take it seriously. We know that to fight it we need leadership that brings our country together, and that is what the Prime Minister has shown us in the parliament this afternoon.

Let me turn to the issue that was also raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, and that is the question of the court case in the High Court that was decided last Wednesday. Let me share a little bit of background with the parliament. On Wednesday last week, the High Court overturned a 20-year precedent that has governed how successive Commonwealth governments in our country have managed the detention of noncitizens. What the High Court has told us is that it does not want ministers of any political persuasion in this country to make decisions that are akin to punishment. I make that point to the parliament. I want the parliament to understand that this was a full court decision of the High Court of our country, and it was made on a constitutional basis. The idea that our government has any choice whatsoever about whether we comply with the High Court's decision is absolute garbage. Anyone in the parliament or outside of it who is arguing any different needs to go back to grade 6 and take a little bit of constitutional law in.

Our system is built on the separation of powers. That means that, as a minister, just like anyone who is sitting in the public gallery, I am required to abide by the law of the land. The law of the land in this instance has been set down by the High Court, and our government has no choice but to follow it. The implication of this is that a group of people have been released from immigration detention. I don't mind telling the parliament that, if it were up to me, none of those people would have been released from immigration detention—none of them. It is not up to me. The High Court of Australia has given a direction to our government that we must release these people from detention, and we have no choice but to follow that direction.

When we undertake the following of that direction, we do so with one priority in mind: the safety of the citizens who elected us here to this parliament. That is why the way we are managing the release of these people from detention, something we did not want to do, is by following that dictum of caring about community safety. That is why people are being released with strict visa conditions. That is why we have set up a police response, Operation AGIS, a joint operation between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Border Force, which is literally case managing each individual as they are removed from detention. As has been foreshadowed by other ministers, legislative options will be brought forward.

I want to address a number of falsehoods that have been raised by the opposition in this debate. The first is one that I've heard directly from the Leader of the Opposition. What he has come out today with is something which, just frankly and very directly, is incredibly stupid. He has come out today and said: 'Don't worry about the Constitution. Just pass a law to put them all back in detention.' I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition, who has been here for 22 years, that he knows and I know that the Australian Constitution and a full court decision of the High Court cannot just be overturned by a decision of this chamber. That is not the political system in which we operate. I know it and he knows it, and pretending any different is a plain falsehood.

The second is that, in some way, this a consequence of choices or decisions that have been made by our government, and I just want to make something really clear. We have been in government now for 18 months. Do you want to know how many of the people who've been released arrived while we have been in government? It is precisely zero. This range of people who arrived under former coalition governments of every political stripe is a problem that we inherited. I just want to remind the parliament that none of these people arrived while Minister Giles and I have been managing the migration system.

Finally, I just want to reiterate to the parliament that the assertion continues to be made by those opposite that this was somehow a choice of our government and the implication continues to be made that this somehow reflects a different view about the crimes that have been committed here, so let me be absolutely clear with you: the crimes that have been committed by some of these people disgust me. They disgust me; they disgust the Prime Minister; they disgust the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.

I am a parent of three young children who are growing up in this country and I personally am deeply offended by anyone in this parliament who is suggesting that I have, in some way, a different view on child sexual abuse to that of the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else who speaks on this matter in this chamber. Let's show each other the most basic of human dignity and agree that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime. If it were up to me, I would put some of these people in jail and throw away the key forever. It is not up to me. That is because it is not the role of a minister in this parliament to decide how long people get shut away in prison. But the implication that somehow there's a different view about how to deal with child sex offenders is baseless, is debasing and should not be made in this parliament.

I have talked at length in this chamber about the record of the Leader of the Opposition in completely breaking our migration system, and that is a very important piece of context here. We have the Nixon review, the last in a series of pretty much relentless reports which tell us that the Leader of the Opposition profoundly mismanaged the migration system. They tell us that he built a public profile that saw him pretending to be a tough guy on borders, all the while allowing to come into the country people who set up criminal gangs, trafficked in humans and sexually and violently abused women. Then he went out to the public and sold a completely different public image. We have the reports. They are on public view. They are available for everyone to read.

Everyone should understand that, in the context of all the debates that we have about immigration in this country, the Leader of the Opposition ran this system for a long time under the previous government. He broke that system due to lack of focus, lack of energy, lack of attention and lack of resources. Now it is left for me and the immigration minister to fix up this disgusting mess, and that is what we are doing. That is why, in the 18 months that we have been in government, you have seen, essentially, a litany of significant reforms to this system to try to keep Australia safe.

Those opposite have had a go today—a pretty awful go—at trying to make politics out of this. I'd just say: get over yourselves. As a country, we have a real problem to fix here. We have a broken immigration system, and I'd like to see the parliament come together and work on those issues together.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've seen levels of incompetence in my nearly 14 years in this place when it comes to immigration, especially in my first term. The incompetence was beyond belief. But I've got to say that the incompetence we've seen over the last week in the handling of this issue is absolutely extraordinary.

On Monday I asked the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs a very simple question. It went along these lines:

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Under the Albanese Labor government, the decision to release 80 hardcore criminals will result in more violent crimes against Australians. Why hasn't this government drafted any legislation to keep Australians safe from these criminals?

It was a fairly simple question. Now, I won't go through the minister's answer, but, needless to say, it was: 'Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.' Then, after an interjection on relevance, he said this:

We moved quickly to ensure that we issued visas to impacted individuals with appropriate conditions to ensure that community safety can be upheld …

There are two points that need to be made about the complete incompetence of this government in dealing with this issue. Let's not forget that this issue is about the government's first priority—keeping Australians safe. The No. 1 priority of any government is keeping Australians safe. Now, let's go to the point about legislation. We have heard excuse upon excuse upon excuse from this government as to why they cannot legislate. Yet, today, we find out, because we've heard it in the Senate—not even here—that the government is going to legislate. Rather than having done their day job and being able to present to the parliament on Monday that legislative fix, they've made every excuse in the world as to why they couldn't—until today, when they have been shamed, absolutely shamed, into having a legislative fix, which we still haven't seen. I say it again: this parliament should not leave here this week—none of us should leave here this week—until that legislative fix is in place.

The second gross incompetence that we've seen is this claim that visas will be issued with appropriate conditions to ensure that communities are safe. It is complete and utter nonsense. Three times we asked the minister today about the visa conditions and whether it was true that these hardened criminals, or some of them, had been released without visa conditions. He would not answer the question. Three times we put it to him in three different ways, and he would not answer the question. What we found out was through, I think, outstanding journalism from the West Australian. A journalist actually went and stayed overnight in the motel with the detainees. What the detainees were doing under these so-called conditions of the visa, it seems, is boasting about how good it is to be smoking marijuana, how good it is to be drinking and how they were having a lot of fun heading into Perth at 2 am in the morning. There were young kids on their bikes driving into the motel and waving to the detainees, who were then abusing the young kids on the bikes. This is the level of protection the Australian community was being provided by this government. It is shameful. It is shameful, and we have to remember what crimes these hardened criminals have committed—child sex offenders; rapists; murderers. Those are the crimes that have been committed by these hardened criminals. This government has failed to keep the community safe from these hardened criminals.

The No. 1 priority of any government is to keep the community safe, and you have abysmally failed in doing that, for two reasons: (a) there is still not a legislative fix, and (b) your visa conditions were a joke.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sacrosanct duty of any government is to keep Australians safe and secure and to ensure our national security. It is odd to hear the confected outrage of those opposite, because, when they were in government, they failed miserably to do the work necessary to keep Australians safe. I'll provide you with the facts on cyber security, immigration, key national security laws: we inherited a wreckage. We inherited a wasteland littered with empty press releases, with zero substance, and a pile of botched laws. I can tell you, as everyone knows in this place, that unconstitutional laws do not keep anyone safe. Unlike those opposite, we listen to the experts and we listen to our national security agencies. The so-called tough guy on the borders, the Leader of the Opposition, is responsible for the mismanagement of dozens of cases and multiple pieces of legislation. He had two goes at writing legislation to strip citizenship from our worst criminals, and he failed both times. Those opposite didn't even bother to provide ongoing funding to the high-risk terrorist offender scheme, treating it as a terminating measure. That's a fact. Labor has now fixed this. This Labor government makes decisions informed by national security advice. This Labor government, in conjunction with our agencies, is working around the clock to ensure that Australians are safe. This Labor government will introduce a constitutionally sound citizenship loss regime as soon as possible.

I say this to those opposite: if you want to keep Australians safe, you actually need to do it right. You actually need to do the work—not the smoke and mirrors, the jumping up and down and the confected outrage. You do it quietly, well and effectively.

The Nixon review was a damning indictment of Australia's visa system under the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite. The review found that our government inherited a broken immigration system where abuse of Australia's visa system was rampant. There were abuses of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime in our system. Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition—first as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and later as Minister for Home Affairs—presided over a migration system that was used to facilitate some of the 'worst crimes' in our society. That's a quote from the report. Here are some facts about the way those opposite did, or maybe didn't do, national security. Under the Leader of the Opposition there was an almost 50 per cent reduction in the number of compliance officers. Applications for onshore protection visas peaked in 2018-2019, with more than 40,000 on hand sitting with the department and awaiting a decision.

In contrast, this Labor government is building a better managed migration system. This Labor government is bringing forward the migration strategy, which will end the years of rorts and make our migration system fit for purpose. This Labor government has invested $50 million into migration compliance and building an immigration compliance division to tackle the rampant exploitation. Operation Inglenook has resulted in the cancellation of 45 visas of people working in criminal syndicates in Australia, including in human trafficking and sexual slavery. This Labor government is delivering a $160 million package of reforms to restore integrity to the system, to provide a fair go to genuine onshore asylum seekers and to work to break the business model of those who seek to exploit the system.

The Liberals opposite abolished a dedicated cybersecurity minister. The Liberals opposite failed to deliver stronger penalties to protect online privacy. Those opposite left a patchwork of inadequate policies and frameworks that failed to protect Australia's most sensitive data from cybercriminals.

This Labor government appointed Australia's first cabinet Minister for Cyber Security and our first National Cyber Security Coordinator. We set up Operation Aquila to enable the ASD and the AFP to fight back against cybercriminals. We've declared 168 critical infrastructure assets as systems of national significance. We've commenced the new cybersecurity National Exercise Program, we reformed the Privacy Act to bring penalties up to community standards and the finance minister has announced the National Strategy for Identity Resilience.

We are not going to take lectures from those in opposition, who, when they were in government, failed abysmally on national security. They talked a big game and they couldn't walk it. Now they come into this place and carry on with confected outrage, outrageously seeking to link antisemitism to the High Court decision. It is outrageous what they're doing. It's all about politics. It's all about politicising it. There is no substance on those benches opposite.

In contrast, we are working night and day to keep Australians safe. That is our duty as a government and we take it seriously and we're doing the job. (Time expired)

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the failure of the government to keep Australians safe:

The first responsibility of government is to provide for the safety and security of its people.

These are not my words; these are the words of none other than Deputy Prime Minister Marles on 9 February this year. While I've been in this chamber I've heard the member for Wills on at least five occasions mention 'confected outrage'. He only mentioned the High Court decision on one occasion, and that is the subject of what we are here to talk about today. The first duty of a government is to keep its citizens safe and secure. Therefore, the first job of the Prime Minister must be to ensure that his ministers are carrying out their work to similarly ensure that Australians are kept safe and secure.

Following a decision of the High Court on 8 November this year, the Albanese government—through the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs—has released 83 hardened convicted criminals into the community amongst our citizens. The High Court has overturned a 20-year-old precedent that has underpinned the migration policy of governments on both sides. However, the issue the government now faces is we have people who were refused entry into Australia on character grounds being released into the Australian community. There is no confected outrage over here, Member for Wills; this is real outrage, and there is real outrage out of here, from this place, by ordinary Australians, particularly those in Western Australia.

During the court case, Solicitor-General Dr Stephen Donaghue told the High Court that the people that are the subject of this decision are criminals who have been convicted of murder, of rape and of child sexual assault. I do not for one moment suggest that the minister or the government have any control over decisions of the High Court; we were just subject to a fairly patronising lecture by the Minister for Home Affairs about the separation of powers. However, a responsible minister, a responsible government, would have been fully briefed on the issues and the hearing before the High Court, would have been prepared and would have considered: 'What if the High Court's decision is unfavourable? What next?' The minister did have that ability at his disposal.

There should have been a legislative response to this issue. There should have been a legislative response available earlier this week. We have said on this side that we will work with the government on this issue. We regard this as such an important matter. We will work with the government. The opposition leader has said we will sit all night if necessary to bring forth bipartisan legislation to keep Australians safe.

What higher order priority could the minister for immigration have than to have had that legislative response ready to address the High Court decision? I've been in question time this week, where the minister has been questioned about the way in which these people have been released into the community—questions that the minister, on most occasions, was unable to adequately address. The ABC has just reported that the minister released some of these detainees without visas, without conditions. We asked this question of the minister today, just over an hour and a half ago, and the minister was either unable or unwilling to give the Australian people any assurances over what conditions have been imposed. I further concur with the comments made by my colleagues the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration that the parliament should not rise this week until the government brings forward this legislation.

If we just look very quickly at a couple of the facts around some of these people that have been released, there is one that is especially horrific—that is, a fellow who was convicted in Malaysia who shot to death a pregnant woman in the jungle just outside Kuala Lumpur and then blew up her body with explosives. The minister did not think that this was a matter of such importance that legislation should have been ready this week. The primary responsibility of a government is to provide for the safety and security of its people. The government, the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration have been found flat-footed here. The government, the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration have failed to plan, have failed to prepare and have failed Australians.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've been a member in this place for around 18 months now. I'm a first-term MP, and I came into this place with my eyes wide open. But one of the craziest things I've witnessed here in my 18 months on a near daily occurrence is the collective amnesia of the Liberal and National parties of Australia. Near daily, they raise a matter of public importance with zero self-reflection about their own record. They raise topics about inflation and interest rates and never acknowledge their record in 10 years of government or that the highest quarter of CPI in a generation was under their watch. They raise topics about energy prices but conveniently forget to mention that they voted against energy price relief in December last year.

Now, today, the absolute gall of those opposite to say this is a government that isn't keeping Australians safe, when their record on immigration and cybersecurity is as it was, is just astounding. Those opposite will never acknowledge that Australians elected the Albanese government to fix up the mess left by them. Be it on inflation, or cost of living, or keeping Australians safe, those opposite failed. On cybersecurity, they failed to keep Australians safe. On immigration, they failed to keep Australians safe. And on key national security laws, they failed to keep Australians safe.

I remind those opposite that laws drafted and implemented by a former coalition government were the laws that were just ruled unconstitutional by the High Court. Unconstitutional laws do not keep Australians safe. While the Leader of the Opposition stands up and plays that 'tough guy on borders' role that we know he loves to play, he is the man that was directly responsible for the mismanagement of dozens and dozens of cases and multiple pieces of legislation.

We just need to look at the Nixon review to see in black and white how the Leader of the Opposition and the former government failed to keep Australians safe. The revelations uncovered by the Nixon review into migration are as confronting as they are infuriating. Our migration system should never operate like it did under the Liberals and Nationals ever again. Our migration system should operate for the benefit of all Australians. Instead, under those opposite, it operated for the benefit of criminals. Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system paints a stark picture of a broken immigration system, a system that was left to rot by the Leader of the Opposition in his role as the former Minister for Home Affairs. The review revealed a deeply flawed system that allowed criminal gangs from around the world to exploit vulnerabilities in the system for their benefit—tragically, at the expense of genuine migrants who would have otherwise reunited with their families or filled much-needed skills shortages.

Those opposite are responsible for a broken immigration system, where abuse of our visa system ran rampant. Those opposite presided over a migration system that was used to facilitate some of the worst crimes in our society, and they come in here today and say that this government isn't keeping Australians safe. Those opposite slashed immigration compliance officers by 50 per cent. Contrast their terrible record to what this government is doing to fix their mess. Unlike those opposite, we listen to experts and we listen to our national security agencies. Unlike those opposite, we do the work to keep Australians safe and we do it properly. Unlike those opposite, we will build a better migration system that serves our national interests but doesn't serve the interests of criminals.

We're investing $50 million into migration compliance. We're establishing an immigration compliance division. We've already cancelled 45 visas linked to criminal syndicates. Under the Liberals, criminals flourished; under Labor, we're closing the syndicates. That's even without going into the details on cybersecurity and the reforms the minister is doing. Australians don't get it wrong; they elected us to clean up their mess.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker, Mr Laxale, had quite the jumble of talking points. We're here talking about national security and keeping Australians safe, but the focus from those opposite is always on the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer. How about you just tell us what it is you intend to do? That is what the Australian people want to know.

I got some correspondence to my office while I was here in question time, and I'll give a short summary of that correspondence because this is what the Australian people are saying. A constituent of mine wrote: 'I was at one of my craft groups this morning. We don't talk politics, but this morning everyone was absolute disgusted about murderers and rapists not only being released from prison but being given aid. We have people here, in this particular town, living in cars. Do they get this assistance? Do they get this accommodation?' In my view, that is the view of the majority of Australians, and this is what they are concerned about.

These are individuals with records such as this: a violent sex predator with a record of attacking elderly women in their own homes. Another individual, sentenced to seven years and six months, pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault. Another individual was jailed 10 times over more than 20 years for drugs, driving and assault offences, including a 2½-year prison term for dangerous driving. More than 80 of these individual have been released.

I was here for the contribution from the Minister for Home Affairs, who said, effectively: 'We can't do anything, it's a decision of the High Court. What can we possibly do?' The first thing that the minister can do is improve the level of communication between the House of Representatives and the Senate, and between individuals in the Labor Party and the other individuals in the Labor Party, because we have a Minister for Home Affairs who is saying nothing can be done and yet we're hearing reports that legislation is planned, intended and will be delivered. Today is Wednesday. This court decision was last Wednesday. The parliament has been here all week. In fact, last night and tonight, the Labor government's priority is extended sittings for the closing the loophole bill so they can deliver on union commitments.

We are here, ready, willing and able, and if those in the government are not able to draft the legislation then we are very happy to assist. Give us access to the resources, give us access to the Public Service and we'll put it together. That's fine! There are always options. This is a matter of incredible importance to the Australian people. The idea that it's being used for some political purpose is nonsense. These are 80 hardened criminals who should not have been released; that is the bottom line. As the government, those opposite have tough decisions to make. There are times when you have to move quickly and we stand ready to do that—as we've said, as the Leader of the Opposition has said and as everyone on this side has said, 'If we need to be here, we will be here.' It can be adjusted, it can be fixed, it can be changed; there are ways to manage these issues. We've seen this previously: when something important in terms of national security, it's dealt with—the parliament works together. If we look at the issue earlier in the year around the former Russian embassy lease site, the opposition worked very closely, and swiftly, with the government to bring forward a resolution because it was in the national interest. There is no way these individuals should be in the community. This government have the opportunity to act, and should have acted on Monday morning at 10.00 when the House opened. They had from Wednesday to Monday to draft legislation, to prepare, to consult with the opposition and to talk to individuals. This happens all the time in government. It is part of being in government: you must deliver when necessary, and this is absolutely necessary right now.

So I say to those opposite: forget about attacking the Leader of the Opposition and ask the Treasurer to stop worrying about what it is the shadow Treasurer does or doesn't have to say. Question time is there to answer the questions put to you, and it's not just us who are asking these questions—these are questions from the Australian people, who are genuinely interested about their safety and the safety of their families from individuals they know should not be in the community. It's not now, not last week, not next week, not even today. Those opposite have the opportunity while the House is sitting to swiftly resolve this matter. They have all of the resources of the Public Service, they have all the budget that is necessary, they have all the advice that they need to find and they have all the specialists and expertise. That's part of being in government. Take the opportunity to address this issue, because the Australian people demand it of you. It is not going away, it needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now. It should have been done two days ago—shame on you for not acting! You should move, and move swiftly.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, we have the opposition, made up of the remnants of the previous failed LNP government, pointing fingers to distract from their own record. I do hear from people that they're feeling less safe, but they feel less safe because of the cynical politicisation by those opposite of tragic events happening here and overseas—performing cheap political stunts, such as we saw during question time, is causing social disharmony and is not in any way making Australians safer, or making them feel safer. The Leader of the Opposition knows that and he doesn't care. That's because he, and those who stand with him, still put their own personal political benefit above the interests of the Australian community. What we saw in question time was disgusting, disgraceful and shameful, and pretending that this is in any way about increasing the safety of the community is offensive, because it is clear it's only about their own political fortunes.

But this is also about the record left by the previous government and the mess they left for this government to clean up. This is a desperate attempt to hide their failures, because the failures are significant. I'm not surprised they want to hide them.

The self-appointed 'tough guy on borders' was shown to be a nonsense in the Nixon review. This was more of the announcement-without-delivery that they were so fond of. The Nixon review was a damning indictment on Australia's visa system under those opposite. We heard how the immigration system under those opposite was broken and the abuse of the visa system ran rampant, with human trafficking, money mules, sex slaves and illicit drugs and tobacco. Organised crime took advantage of the hopeless visa regime overseen by those opposite to spread their misery, victimising Australians and those poor humans who were trafficked. That is what those opposite oversaw. That is what the 'tough guys on law and order' allowed to happen, through their inaction and incompetence. It isn't enough to tell the media that you're tough on law and order. You actually have to do something about it. And those opposite have proven they are not up to it.

So what did they actually do? Well, they cut the number of compliance officers by 50 per cent. As a result, the backlog of visa applications built up, and organised crime and individual criminals saw the opportunity and took advantage of those delays.

The Leader of the Opposition had two attempts at writing legislation to strip citizenship from our worst criminals—two goes, and he failed both times. He didn't bother to provide ongoing funding to the high-risk terrorist offender scheme, treating it as a terminating scheme. Perhaps—as with so many of the other measures they failed to budget for—they were putting their budget announcements ahead of keeping Australians safe. And of course the laws just ruled unconstitutional by the High Court, resulting in the release of criminals, were drafted by those opposite. Fail! That was the legacy of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, under his watch: fail, fail, fail. They were putting their own interests ahead of the interests of Australians.

What have we done? We have invested $50 million into migration compliance, and we are building an immigration compliance division to tackle the rampant exploitation and abuse we saw under those opposite. Operation Inglenook has resulted in the cancellation of 45 visas of people working in criminal syndicates in Australia, including in human trafficking and sex slavery—people who were operating criminal enterprises, quite happily and unbothered, under the opposition leader's profoundly mismanaged immigration scheme. We are delivering a $160 million package of reforms to restore integrity to the system—an integrity sadly lacking under those opposite. We are working to break the business model of those who seek to exploit the system—those who flourished under those opposite, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition.

But they were not only incompetent on border security, in terms of keeping Australia safe; they also put Australians at risk in other ways. One of the things I hear a lot about in my community is cybersecurity and the rise of scams. I don't really have time to go into that, but they abolished the cybersecurity minister and they left a patchwork of laws that didn't work. And this is what we've had to fix again. So I was appalled by what I saw in question time.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is certainly a collective sense of shock in the Australian community, that 83 hardened criminals have been released from detention and are living amongst Australians—our families—and fraternising with young children, potentially, and doing God knows what, because we have a circumstance where people that should absolutely not be in our community now are. That's obviously due to a decision of the High Court, and no-one is disputing the jurisdiction of the High Court, and no-one has criticised the reality that the High Court interprets our legislation and that High Court decisions should be honoured.

We now have a situation, therefore, where the government has to respond to a decision of the court. And governments should do this as a matter of course. They do it all the time. There are many famous instances of significant unanticipated High Court decisions, where governments have had to, therefore, step in and legislate. But there is a great deal of confusion as to whether or not that is what the government will even be doing whatsoever.

We had a circumstance during a debate during question time when the Prime Minister made a comment in the heat of the argument—and maybe he thought he was being clever—referencing the recent referendum and put it on the coalition by saying that we made arguments that you can't 'out-legislate' the High Court. He was invoking that principle here and now in this instance. He was saying to the parliament that it won't be possible to legislate to overcome this decision of the High Court and to get these people out of the community and back into a custodial circumstance where they belong. That line is completely inconsistent with other members of his government, who have intimated that legislation is being worked on, that they're working through the issues of how there might be some kind of legislative solution to this decision that's been made, and that, at some point, the parliament will be asked to deal with this matter.

We have a prime minister saying that no legislation is possible and that you can't legislate against the High Court. We have a deputy prime minister saying this morning that they're looking into avenues for legislation. Then we have two ministers—an immigration minister and a home affairs minister—who, in their public commentary, would make you think that this is all about people feeling sorry for them and the situation they're in as ministers responsible for a matter that they should be taking responsibility for and are not. They're indicating that it's all someone else's fault and that we should feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the communities who have now got living amongst them these 83 high-risk individuals when both sides agree it is dangerous for them to be out in the community.

We've got someone who's been convicted of raping a 10-year-old boy. We've got someone who's been convicted of murder. Quite rightly, he is not being sent back to the country where he's been convicted because he'll face the death penalty. I support the fact that we don't extradite people to jurisdictions with the death penalty, but I don't support a person who's been convicted of murdering someone living in my community or in any other Australian's community. If you think about how this would be handled, if it were an Australian citizen rather than people in this circumstance, it is very much the case that, in my home state of South Australia, a paedophile might have served their sentence, but they are still not released back into the community when it is clearly the case that they are still a danger to the community. State parliaments have been able to legislate control order regimes to ensure that these people aren't free to move amongst the community and be a threat or be at risk of reoffending.

We're going to find out at some point whether there is a legislative solution to this or not, when the government, ultimately, brings something into the parliament. That will be the real revelation. If the government brings something into the parliament on this matter, what we will know is that there is a solution but that they didn't take the first opportunity available to them to put it in place. We all deeply, deeply pray that none of these dangerous people do anything to innocent Australians in our community while we wait for the government to take action, but the reality is that the government should have been prepared for this potential circumstance. If we find out that we could have legislated but that that legislation has been delayed for months and months and months while these people are out in the community, that is on the head of the two ministers responsible and this government for failing to act expeditiously.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start with three principles. First of all, all Australian governments want to keep our citizens safe. That's something that I think both sides of this chamber can fundamentally understand. The other thing that I would say is that all lives matter. That's something that I think that we can agree as humans. Finally, what I would say is that words in this place matter, and they can be amplified, so we need to be really intentional about what we say in here.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak about this. I am a new MP, and I have been often proud of the 47th Parliament. I had thought that we had come a long way in this place, but here we are again with the Liberal Party back playing the 'tough on borders' game. That game didn't work. They failed to keep Australians safe. Laws that are unconstitutional do not keep anyone safe.

Look, the High Court, the highest court of the land, has made a decision. And one of the things I think all Australians would agree on is that law and justice are important and that nobody is above the law, including those people in this House. The High Court has the roles and functions to interpret the law and decide on important cases. We live in a system where courts make independent decisions, separate to the decisions or actions of the executive—or this parliament. I think it's fascinating that we're back here doing politics 101, law 101, justice 101. This is a fundamental essence of our democracy. It's important that we remember and reflect on this.

It's called responsible government and it's about separation of powers. These are concepts that eluded the member for Cook, and it seems to be contagious—maybe that's because the member for Cook is still a member of this parliament—as it appears the member for Dickson has the same affliction. He couldn't answer the question this morning at his press conference about why he had not deported the detainees when he was immigration minister. He couldn't answer it. Was he keeping Australia unsafe? I think that he knows it. He tried twice to write legislation to strip citizenship from some of the worst criminals you can come across, and twice he failed. And then his party defunded the high-risk terrorist offenders scheme. His party failed to keep Australia safe. Labor fixed that, and this is another mess that Labor has to clean up once again.

What the High Court has done on this occasion is perform its function, one that is independent of the executive and the legislative arm of the government. This decision has changed some of the ways in which Australia can hold people in detention. But we need to remember that the High Court has not released the full judgement yet, so we can only anticipate the full extent of the legislative response that is necessary to reflect that judgement. The government is doing what it can, as we heard earlier today. I understand, from listening to the debate, that the government is monitoring the changes brought down by the High Court and what the requirements of their visas should be.

We should all keep our communities safe. We all want to foster social cohesion and goodwill amongst the community, which is another reason why the words that we say in this place matter. It fundamentally does. There are moments in this place where I'm ashamed to call myself a politician and I think that we really need to look hard at ourselves and be really intentional about what we're trying to achieve.

You can choose division or you can choose unity. You can choose love; you can choose hate. You can choose disunity; you can choose peace. Our government is dealing with the decisions of the High Court, as we heard from the minister today, and this is a government that is acting without hysteria. I love Australia and I think everyone should have a sense of belonging here.