Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.

We did learn in these answers that the government has no idea whether its interventions in Australia's most important food bowl are going to have any impact on food prices for Australians. Anyone who has been to the supermarket in the past year or so—and that would be most people, I'd say—would know how expensive things are at the shops, how expensive food has become, along with many other products. Since this government came to power, bread prices have gone up by 21 per cent, milk prices by 18 per cent and egg prices by 17 per cent. You would think that in that environment the government would be very wary about making any changes that make it harder or more costly for Australian farmers to produce food and therefore potentially have a bigger impact on prices than already exists.

But this government is rushing headlong into making major changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and they're completely unnecessary changes at that. We have plenty of different ways to recover water for the environment. Instead, this government is headlong obsessed with buying back water from Australian farmers. And if you buy back water, farmers are going to produce less food. These are not buybacks; they're buyouts. They buy out the farm, the farmers shut down—farmers do very well out of it, quite often—and they'll end up reducing their production, as we heard in Senator Davey's question today, and reduce their supply of food. And what will reduced supply mean? It'll mean higher prices for that food overall.

In fact, the Murray-Darling Basin is our nation's food bowl. It produces 40 per cent of our country's food. It produces over 70 per cent of our nation's oranges, peaches and grapes. It produces over 20 per cent of our nation's milk. While I now live a long way from the Murray-Darling Basin, I've had a lot to do with it over the years, and I was fortunate enough to join Senator Davey a few weeks ago to travel through the Murray-Darling Basin for a week. We went to Shepparton, to Mildura, to Renmark, to Griffith and to Moree—all around the basin. We did that because the Senate committee that is looking into the government's plans on water buybacks, which is dominated by government senators, refused to hold hearings in the Murray-Darling. The government is making these massive changes to the Murray-Darling, massive changes that are going to impact our nation's farmers, yet they refuse to hold public hearings where those impacts would be.

When we went to these towns we heard from these communities, heard from farmers how anxious they are about water buybacks coming back in and potentially completely changing the economic structure of their community. We heard from the CEO of SPC, a great Australian company in Shepparton that produces so much food for our country. He very clearly told us, regarding buybacks—and the reason the government didn't go to Shepparton is that they didn't want to hear this, of course—that the cost of the inputs, of food, would be higher, and therefore in order to recover costs and make a modest profit they would have to sell at a higher price. That's what will happen. That will be the consequence of this government's policies.

But we heard today that the government is taking a shoot-first, maybe-ask-questions-later approach. They haven't done any modelling. They haven't done any investigation into what exactly the impacts of their obsession with water buybacks will have on food prices for Australians. That should make every Australian very worried, because it is already costly enough to buy food in our nation's shops. Australians are already reporting that they are cutting back on meals because they cannot afford to buy food at their local shops. In that environment, why would we be making our farmers' lives tougher? Why would we be making it harder for people in our country to grow our food and to supply Australians with affordable, high-quality produce that we are so lucky to, in normal times, have the advantage of having?

We've had a very good few years in food production in Australia. We've had very good seasons. These higher prices we're seeing are not a consequence of a lack of food production; they're a consequence of higher energy prices and higher labour prices, with inflation generally flowing through to food prices. But if, on top of that, we put a man-made drought onto our nation's farmers by restricting their use of water, these prices will only be a foretaste of what might come for Australians having to access food in their supermarkets. So the government should end this obsession with water buybacks. They should listen to our nation's farmers. And, most of all, they should protect living costs for all Australians and encourage food production in Australia, not make it harder.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all know that last week the High Court made a ruling that people who were in indefinite detention be released—that they could no longer be detained. And, of course, on this side our focus is on managing this mandatory decision and on community safety. So Minister Clare O'Neil has set the strictest possible visa conditions for this group of people. The Australian Federal Police have briefed, in person, each state, federal and territory commissioner to ensure that they're aware of what is happening in the process.

I would like to add that, although those opposite come in to play politics with this issue, the government did argue that these people continue to be kept in detention. What those on the other side don't seem to realise is that we have to follow the rule of law. We know that many on the other side—in fact, a huge number of people on the other side—obviously don't believe in following the rule of law, and we know that because of how they behaved through the robodebt issue. But we had to release those people. We argued against the outcome in the High Court, but the High Court last week issued a writ telling the government they had to release these people, so these people have been released. They've been put on bridging visas with, as I understand, the strictest of conditions.

The High Court still has yet to release its full judgement, so I would remind people that, within this judgement, the High Court has actually overturned a 20-year precedent. When those opposite were in government, they didn't have to ever worry about what might happen if the High Court were to determine that these people had to be released, but we do. We were already working towards that and were prepared for it, as it might well be a result. Our minister worked diligently with the Australian Border Force and the Australian Federal Police to establish that, if and when it did happen that we were ordered to release them, those people who've been released would be moved into state and territory post-offending programs where appropriate. I also understand that each offender is being case monitored. So, as I've stated, these people are being released under very strict conditions, and those conditions include regular reporting to authorities; reporting their personal details, including any social media profiles, which, of course, are being actively monitored; and restrictions to the type of employment that they can undertake. As I said, this is on top of any reporting orders imposed by state, territory or federal law enforcement agencies.

This government has been really proactive with regard to informing law enforcement about people being released, as I said, so that territories and states can ensure that they keep their communities safe. The government is looking at legislative and regulatory options to ensure safety in the community. But we cannot and should not ever ignore the decision of the High Court, and that's why we've had to act. Those on the other side have asked questions this week as though we had an option to act or not act. Well, we don't. It's mandatory. If the High Court make a decision, it's mandatory for the government to act.

Today we heard concerns about the President of the Human Rights Commission. Well, when I last looked, the President of the Human Rights Commission was an independent officer, and I think that the current President of the Human Rights Commission was actually appointed under the former government. I remember when there were issues with a previous president of the Human Rights Commission and people wanting to make sure that person was no longer in the job, so I'm pretty sure that the President of the Human Rights Commission was appointed under the former government. Of course, as I said, it's an independent office, so there's a separation of powers that we have in this country, and those opposite know all this.

As I've said, we argued against the decision, but we're bound to follow it, and those opposite need to remember that. Only earlier this week, I heard Senator Duniam complaining that we weren't talking about cost of living, and it was not on just one occasion but on numerous occasions that I heard Senator Duniam say that, while they were voting with the Greens against the sea dumping legislation. Three out of four questions today were on this matter. In fact, none of the questions today were about cost of living.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I too rise to take note of answers, in this case from Minister Wong, to questions from coalition senators. I'll take the point that has just been made, that Senator Wong did refer to the cost of living. That does surprise me somewhat, because despite all of the promises by the Albanese government ahead of the last election, none have delivered the benefits that the Australian people were led to believe.

CPI data just from this past week shows that food is up by 8.2 per cent; housing costs are by 10.4 per cent; insurance by 17.3 per cent; nationally, electricity is up by 18.2 per cent, but AGL and Origin—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, a point of order?

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure I didn't hear any questions from the opposition today in regard to the cost of living. Am I correct? There was one in relation to inflation and wages, I think. Senator Wong did mention it.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order—this is not in my response time—I'm taking note of answers to questions. In Senator Wong's answer, she queried why we weren't raising the cost of living. So I—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in order, Senator Fawcett.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Always people are speaking without thinking through the facts. The facts, as confirmed by Origin and AGL, are that in my home state of South Australia, far from seeing bills go down by $275, which was promised time and time again by now Prime Minister Albanese ahead of the election, prices have gone up by 24.2 per cent, which is an increase of some $405. That is due to the ideological approach taken by this government, which is highlighted by the OECD and the International Energy Agency that a pursuit of an energy system reliant on variable renewables will, over time, as we seek to constrain emissions, drive prices up. That's not a coalition position. It's the position of economic and engineering experts globally, and they base that on the lived experience of the OECD.

I would like to come to the substantive matter that we had talked about, which is Labor's response to the High Court decision. I take the comment that the government is obliged to follow the direction of the court, but the question is how quickly and how effectively the government responds. The questions today were around the confusion in government messaging as to what they were or were not doing.

I come to comments made in this chamber about human rights of continuing detention. My view, and I think the view of many in Australia, is that when someone has shown they are a repeat offender or, in the case of they have not recanted from an ideological position, in the case of terrorism, then they are a continuing risk to the Australian population. We actually have an obligation to the human right of Australians to be safe. I notice in the case of one of the people who has been released that one of the victims, Sonya—I'm not sure if that's her true name—was reported in the media as saying there is too much emphasis on the victimhood of the perpetrators who are held in immigration detention indefinitely rather than on the victims themselves, people who have lifelong damage from the criminal conduct. She was talking about an individual who was sentenced to seven years and six months after pleading guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault. In her victim impact statements, she says the crime was heinous and life altering and has caused anxiety, nightmares and a feeling of anger and disgust that will stay with her for the rest of her life.

We have an obligation to protect the human rights of people like Sonya, not just to look at the ideological or the purist argument about the offender. This is not an ongoing punishment. In fact, I go to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in 2016, which I was a member of, where we looked at the very issue of continuing detention orders. It said in that report that a CDO is not intended to repunish past behaviour but rather to protect the community from an unacceptable risk of future harm that may be caused by an unreformed convicted terrorist being released at the end of their prison sentence. Not only do we have this issue with people released from immigration detention; we have the issue now that the government is face of Mr Benbrika, a convicted terrorist, who had his citizenship rescinded by Mr Dutton, when he was in the appropriate ministerial portfolio, on the basis of legislation. That has also been overturned by the High Court, and this government has an obligation to instigate measures rapidly both to ensure a continuing CDO and to reform the legislation so that people who have acted contrary to the interests of Australia can be deported.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet again it's disappointing to see the coalition continuing to play politics with a decision of our supreme court, the High Court of Australia. Just to be absolutely clear, I want to read out an answer that was given by Senator Wong in response to a question asked by Senator Birmingham which I think really sums up where we are today. Senator Wong said this:

It is the case that the legislative framework that you—

that is, the coalition—

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 … 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.

In essence, we are dealing here with a situation where the High Court of Australia has overturned a 20-year precedent, a situation where the government is working very much around the clock in anticipation of viewing the High Court's decision, which has not been made public, working with those—and hopefully with the opposition's support—at a stage soon to get legislation through the parliament to ensure that we make changes to address this situation. What I find quite offensive in this place is that we have individuals and a coalition party playing politics with the very serious set of circumstances currently before the government, which is trying to be responsible and to, as you'd expect from any government, act within the law of the country.

The High Court has found individuals to be unlawfully detained, and the government cannot ignore that. The government must act immediately, and it must act in accordance with the law, the law that we pass in this country. All governments must act in accordance with the law. I know that might be a controversial view for some in this place, particularly those opposite who want to play politics. After all, they are the architects of the unlawful robodebt scheme. We know that the coalition is struggling with this concept, and I'm quite amazed and surprised that they would continue to act in such a way. The government's concern has been that of community safety, not the political games of those opposite. The government has taken action to ensure that the community's safety is protected within the law that we currently have.

We started well before the High Court decision was handed down. Our border protection and law enforcement agencies have been working to make sure that the toughest possible conditions can be placed on those individuals. The government continues to work around the clock with these agencies to uphold the safety of our community. The government is also exploring further measures, including the legislative and regulatory options that are before us, to ensure the community's safety as we work through the implications of the High Court decision, noting the court is yet to hand down its reasons. Prior to any of the individuals other than the plaintiff being released, a joint ABF—that is, the Australian Border Force—and AFP, Australian Federal Police, operation was launched. So the suggestion from those opposite that the government did not make preparations before releasing these people is simply incorrect.

The individuals were required to be released, as I've stated, but are subject to very strict mandatory visa conditions. Such conditions include restricting the type of employment, requiring regular reporting to authorities, and requiring released detainees to report their personal details, including any social media profiles which they might have—which, as I understand, are being actively monitored—as well as other measures. I'm sure the security agencies and law enforcement agencies are monitoring very closely. I do think people need to come into this place with a perspective—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I will give the call to Senator Antic and set the clocks for three minutes, as I understand the time is to be split with One Nation.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President; I'll have to truncate my remarks based on that early warning. As far as I'm concerned, it is an extraordinary day in the Australian federal parliament—actually, it was yesterday—when you see the cheer squad of the socialist Left in this country, the Guardian newspaper, taking aim at the most socialist government we have had in this country in living memory, possibly since the Whitlam government. The Guardian story, which was referred to by my colleague Senator Fawcett, was about this lady—this victim—Sonya, who has given her story to the Guardian.

I'll come to that in a minute, but, of course, I'm taking note of the answers given by Senator Wong in relation to the recent decision of the High Court overturning a 20-year precedent that has underpinned the migration policy in this country. The net effect of that has been that, I think, the plaintiff in this case—a man who, by the way, raped a 10-year-old boy; a child sexual offender—is released into the community. We know that there are at least 83 at the moment and potentially upwards of 92 detainees who are going to be released from immigration detention as a consequence of this judgement.

When challenged in the House yesterday, the Labor government continued to fudge its position in respect of what is happening. We were told that there were going to be strict restrictions put on the detainees. In fact, here today Senator Ciccone has just mentioned the government is working through these issues, which is good to know. It's good to know we're working through them. We heard from Senator Bilyk that there was a strong chance these people were going to be case managed—that's encouraging. We also heard earlier on, I think, that this government has left open the option of electronic bracelets for the ankles. That's going to be a great comfort, isn't it, for people like Sonya, whom the Guardianthe cheer squad of the socialist Left in this country—reported on? The Guardian says here:

When the man who raped Sonya at her work was released on parole, she was told he would "never be free in Australia" as he would be held indefinitely in immigration detention.

That's not the awful Murdoch press that we hear so much about; that's the Guardian.

There are people in this country driving around now who are putting bumper stickers on with, 'Don't blame me; I voted Liberal.' The buyers remorse about this government is now reaching fever point, and this highlights it. The government have no idea what they're doing about this. They're scrambling for a solution, and all the time in the meantime, Australian people are being put at risk because of this flat-footed approach to this decision.

Question agreed to.