Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Albanese government has released 149 criminals from immigration detention. Last night at senate estimates, the AFP was unable to confirm if any of those murderers or rapists the minister has released are among those who've committed new crimes. Minister, have any of the seven murderers, 37 sex offenders or 72 other violent criminals released committed a new offence?

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

I raise a point of order in relation to standing order 100(d)(iii) and (iv), in relation to inferences and imputations in that question. The release of these detainees was made as a result of the High Court decision. That's not reflected in the question.

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

We have dealt with this matter before. It's not my role to give judgement on whether statements are accurate or not. The minister will be able to refer to whether the question he believes was accurate, or whether he has a view, or any minister has a view, on the accuracy of the statement made. While I appreciate the member for Warringah's point, these sorts of questions have been asked for some time, and it was dealt with last year as well. On the point of order, the member for Warringah?

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

I appreciate that. I just want to clarify that, in the standing orders, 100(d)(iii) and 100(d)(iv) specifically refer to the fact that questions must not contain inferences or imputations. Is it the chair's ruling that there are no inferences or imputations in that question?

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

It's a statement by the member asking the question about their interpretation and view. The minister in his or her response may be able to deal with that inference in the question. The minister for each question has been dealing with that, and I'm allowing him to address the question. But I'm simply not in a state to adjudicate on every single statement by every single member on whether I believe it's accurate or not. The person answering the question shall deal with that. On the point of order?

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

In that case there is no point in having that section in the standing orders. It is there for a reason. In that section, if I could just point out, 'Rules for questions', 100(d)(iii) and 100(d)(iv)—I'd invite members to read the standing orders—it is clear that it is intended that inferences and imputations should not be included in questions. It's not a question of ruling whether or not one accepts that they're there; the standing orders make clear that they 'must not contain'. It's not a question of saying whether the chair feels that there is a negative imputation. The standing orders are clear. So, I'm just raising the question of the standing orders.

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

I appreciate the member's interest and I appreciate her raising the point of order. The difficulty for me as chair is that I would start ruling out nearly every question if that was the case. We did have a similar issue raised by a question yesterday on the crossbench. As someone who tries to allow as many questions as possible on behalf of the constituents they represent, I agree that it does place me in a difficult position. But I appreciate the member raising the question. I give the call to the minister.

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

Of course it was the case that it was the decision of the High Court overturning two decades of precedent that required the release of the detainees, the subject of this, as the member well knows—or should well know.

One of the many aspects of our government's response, always focused on community safety, was putting in place criminal penalties for breaches of the strict visa conditions we've put in place. Of course, how these breaches are dealt with is a matter for the Australian Federal Police, and breaches of other state or territory laws are matters for the relevant law enforcement authorities, and we have confidence in all of them to do their job.