Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

Listening to this debate today, I have pulled out the Constitution and I'm going to read section 75(v), which is the original jurisdiction of the High Court. In reference to the TEO, the minister makes a decision based on what has been presented to him by the individual departments. He then makes a TEO against these people who may wish at some time to come back to Australia. In doing so—the minister may clarify this if I'm incorrect in my assessment—the minister will actually sign off on the names put before him and, once he has done that, then the reviewing officer, which is usually a retired judge or a former judge of the AAT, will actually have a look at it to make sure that the legalities are adhered to.

Senator McKim, 75(v) of the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it because it is in reference to the High Court. Section 75(v) states:

(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

This has got nothing to do with the High Court, and section 75(v) should never come into this debate here, so I think this is a long bow that the Greens are drawing here. So, Minister, please correct me if I'm incorrect in my assessment.