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

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Why did the government tell the High Court that there was no real prospect of the plaintiff being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future when it hadn't yet made inquiries of relevant countries that might have accepted his deportation? Isn't it the case that, if the government were doing its job and had not made this error, the now 142 hardened criminals would not have been released into the Australian community?

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order, members on my right! The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the shadow minister for his question. The government vigorously argued that the previous immigration detention settings were constitutionally valid and that those settings authorised the continued detention of the plaintiff.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order, members on my left! The member for Barker will cease interjecting.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order, members on my left! When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Fraser.