Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. As the minister has acknowledged today, we are assured by the government that the 83 individuals—as I understand it now—released following last week's High Court decision are subject to:

… a range of strict mandatory visa conditions. Such conditions include restricting types of employment, requiring regular reporting to authorities, and requiring released detainees to report their personal detail including their social media profiles …

My colleague Senator Paterson has asked on multiple occasions: what are the specific consequences if one of these 83 individuals released from immigration detention violates these visa conditions? Is it the fact that the penalty for breaching a visa condition is detention pending removal, which the High Court has ruled unconstitutional for this cohort? Is that the reality that Senator Paterson has identified and the government has failed so far to address?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the case that the legislative framework that you operated under did not contemplate a constitutional view of detention that has been found by the High Court, so it is the case that the arrangements, the legislative or regulatory framework associated with such persons, will need to be amended. The government is working through that, and, as I said, the government intends to introduce legislation shortly to further respond to the decision of the High Court. We look forward to the opposition assisting with passage of that legislation as soon as is possible.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, first supplementary?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition, since the ruling was handed down last week, has repeatedly suggested the need for the government to legislate remedies as a result of the ruling. But as recently as this morning the Minister for Home Affairs described calls to legislate as, 'garbage' and 'categorically false'. Was Minister O'Neil correct in her assertions then, or when was the decision taken by government to bring legislation to the parliament, as the opposition has been suggesting? (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, I don't think that is an accurate reflection of what Ms O'Neil said. Second, the government has been very promptly seeking to deal with a decision that does, as Senator Paterson himself indicated, overturn a 20-year precedent, and, as a consequence, a set of changes are likely to be required in relation to the framework that was your framework, as well as the framework under which we've been operating and the High Court has now said is unconstitutional in this regard. I would note—and I do sound a note of caution—that as yet the High Court has not handed down its reasons for the decision. No doubt those will need to be studied as well when that does occur because this does represent a very substantial change in position from what was understood by your government. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, second supplementary?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First the government said it would await those reasons for the decision before releasing any other individuals. Then the government said that it was not pursuing legislative remedies and described them as garbage but now it is doing so. The government said that individuals were subject to visas upon release. Now because of a technicality that'll be occurring after release. How does this provide confidence to Australians that the government is comprehensively handling— (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there are a lot of assertions in there, and the great majority of them are simply untrue. I know that the opposition want to jump on this and play a lot of politics with it. I know they're much more interested in talking about this than the cost of living.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not by the answers you give.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash really loves to suggest that she's the only person who cares about keeping Australians safe. Actually, we do too; we all do. You are not the only person in the universe who cares about national security. We do. I know you are salivating at playing domestic politics with this. This is a decision, as Senator Paterson rightly pointed out, that overturns a 20-year precedent. It's going to require legislative or regulatory— (Time expired)