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. The minister has told the parliament that the High Court's decision meant that 'every person required to be released by order of the High Court was so released'. In fact, the High Court only directed the release of the plaintiff, NZYQ, in that case. The decision to release the others was a decision made by the government in advance of the reasons being handed down—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! The member will pause. I'm going to ask him to state the question again because there is far too much noise from the Minister for Home Affairs and members on my right. The same rules apply to everyone. Questions are going to be heard in silence. It's not a free-for-all. You don't give commentary during questions. If you want to comment during the answer, well, go right ahead, but, for my job, I have to listen to the questions. The member for Wannon will state his question again.

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. The minister has told the parliament that the High Court's decision meant that 'every person required to be released by order of the High Court was so released'. In fact, the High Court only directed the release of the plaintiff, NZYQ, in that case. The decision to release the others was a decision made by the government in advance of the reasons being handed down, based on what it expected the High Court to say. Isn't it the case that the minister has misled the parliament?

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 that extraordinary question. Let me be very, very, very clear. The High Court, in its decision, required the release of individuals in similar circumstances to the plaintiff, NZYQ. The government had to comply with this, as any government would. The opposition's claims to the contrary, including those of the shadow Attorney-General, a former first law officer of this country, are baseless, wrong and, frankly, unworthy. A former attorney-general, not from this side of politics, former senator Brandis, had this to say, and I think his comments are worth listening to:

I have not disguised my concern at attacks upon the institutions of the law: the courts and those who practice in them. To attack those institutions is to attack the rule of law itself.

He went on to say, in his valedictory remarks:

It is for the Attorney-General always to defend the rule of law, sometimes from political colleagues who fail to understand it or are impatient of the limitations it may impose upon executive power.

That is a very apt comment now, and members opposite should have regard to it, and they should be ashamed.

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

The member for Barker is now warned!