Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill proposes important amendments to the Migration Act that complement and reinforce amendments passed by the Parliament on 18 November 2023.

On the 8th of November, in the case of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the High Court determined that NZYQ's detention was unlawful:

'By reason of there having been, and continuing to be, no real prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia … in the reasonably foreseeable future'.

The High Court's decision has significant implications for the safety of vulnerable people in the community, and the mechanisms by which the Government can provide for their protection.

Let me be clear, the Australian Government made preparations ahead of the High Court ruling.

State and Territory police counterparts were briefed on the potential implications of this case prior to the decision being handed down- because community safety has always been front of mind in our approach to this case.

Following the 8 November ruling, all released individuals have been subject to appropriate stringent visa conditions, including regular reporting obligations.

The Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force continue to work together with state and territory authorities and law enforcement to support community safety.

Shortly after, in response to the court's decision, on 16 November 2023 the Parliament passed amendments to the Migration Act and Migration Regulations to further support an enduring and robust framework for the management of this cohort in the community.

While the legislation passed on 16 November provided a strong initial response to this decision—the Government is continuing to work through the implications of the High Court's judgment.

The legislative amendments proposed today reinforce those initial amendments, by taking the next necessary steps towards ensuring the protection of the Australian community.

We will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to protect the Australian community.

It is possible as we continue to work through the implications of this decision, further legislation may be required to ensure the community is further protected.

The Government remains committed to reinforcing Australia's laws to support the appropriate and proportionate management of the affected cohort of people while their immigration status is being resolved.

And therefore the Government will continue to review these arrangements, and develop any further amendments, as required- including when we have the High Court's reasons for its decision.

I believe the Australian community would rightly expect this of us.

Community safety remains the first priority of the Australian Government.

And the amendments proposed today further strengthen the legislative framework available to manage this cohort, pending their removal from Australia, which we will continue to pursue.

Specifically, this legislation provides further clarity about the Government's expectations with regard to the conduct and the behaviour of this cohort, with a particular focus on those with a history of offences in relation to the most vulnerable in our society, including minors, and victims.

This Bill also proposes measures to strengthen the authority for the appropriate collection and use of information gathered by electronic monitoring devices.

These amendments reinforce the critical collaboration between Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies, specifically in regards to effective information sharing, to ensure the behaviour of non-citizens in our community complies with our expectations of visitors to this country.

The Australian Government is putting the needs of victims and their families, and of minors and vulnerable people, first.

These amendments are in line with community expectations—and they are the right thing to do.

New offences

Under these laws, those who have been convicted of an offence that involves a minor, or another vulnerable person must not:

1. Perform any work, or participate in any regular organised activity involving more than incidental contact with another person who is a minor or another vulnerable person, or

2. Go within 200 meters of a school, childcare centre or day care centre.

3. The laws also stipulate that those previously convicted of an offence involving violence or sexual assault must not contact the victim of that offence, or any member of their family.

The sentences provided for in this Bill reflect the seriousness of the offending, and the Government's steadfast commitment to protecting the wellbeing of the most vulnerable members of Australian society.

Strong criminal offences are the most effective response to breaches of these visa conditions for the NZYQ-affected cohort. This is because—by reason of the High Court's decision—the normal consequences of breaching visa conditions do not apply.

The intent of the Government is clear—that certain behaviours are unacceptable, and that there strong, proportionate and immediate consequences for the breach of these visa conditions.

Charges brought as a result of the new offences will be subject to existing criminal proceedings and judicial determination, and the courts will consider individual circumstances when determining the appropriate sentence.

The evidentiary burden for establishing a reasonable defence for failure to comply with the conditions will sit with the non-citizen. The standard defences available in the Criminal Code will also apply.

Again, I would like to stress that these changes are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the Government's objectives of supporting the safety of the community, particularly those most vulnerable.

The Australian community expects, and the Australian Government affirms, that these penalties should reflect the seriousness of the breach of conditions.

Powers to collect and share information

The amendments proposed today will also strengthen the authority for the collection and use of information gathered by electronic monitoring devices.

This includes:

This includes monitoring the visa holder's compliance with the conditions of their visa, and responding rapidly to any indications of non-compliance.

The purposes of these conditions are to deter the individual from committing further offences whilst holding the removal pending visa.

This supports ongoing monitoring, which will help to keep the community safe.

As mentioned previously, the Government will continue to pursue the removal of these people from Australia at the first possible opportunity.

The utilisation of electronic monitoring devices will therefore also enable the Government to locate the visa holder to facilitate their removal from Australia as soon as a real prospect of removal becomes apparent.

Acknowledging our obligations to privacy under Australian law, appropriate protocols and processes will be implemented to ensure the information derived from these devices is protected exclusively within the bounds of the purpose for which it is being shared.

Closing remarks

These amendments are reasonable and necessary, and will be further supported by a number of amendments to the Migration Regulations1994.

They make our laws more durable, by getting ahead of any potential future challenges.

We are making strict laws stricter.

Strong laws stronger.

Tough laws tougher.

With these laws we are ensuring the safety of the Australian community.

We will continue to ensure the cohort of individuals released from immigration detention as a result of the High Court decision are managed appropriately under the relevant legal frameworks.

There is no greater priority for this government than the safety of Australians, and this Bill is a demonstration of that.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

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

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which, I note, has been brought on after the agreement to a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, and I congratulate Senator Birmingham for doing that. Here we are, just after question time on a Tuesday but almost one month after the High Court handed down its ruling in the NZYQ case. The government, at the behest of the opposition, ironically, is finally doing what the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Paterson and the coalition have been asking them to do—in fact, saying to them, pleading with them: 'You need to introduce a protective detention regime. You need to.' We have been asking them to introduce legislation allowing law enforcement agencies to lock up high-risk individuals who have now been roaming free in communities in Australia. Tragically, as we now know, two of them have been charged with allegedly committing offences of sexual assault, and, what is worse, one of the offences was against a minor.

For the record, though, let me remind you of how we got here today. The High Court of Australia handed down its decision on 8 November. That is almost four weeks ago today. The next day, the government told us the individual in the High Court decision had been released, but, when asked about the potential release of other individuals in the cohort, Senator Watt actually said, 'We're not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released.' Guess what? On the Friday of that week we found out that, contrary to Senator Watt's evidence, the Albanese government was immediately releasing a large number of high-risk individuals. As we know, that cohort included rapists, murderers, paedophiles and even a contract killer. They were releasing them from immigration detention, following the High Court decision.

The following Monday the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles, told us that 80 individuals had been released 'subject to a range of strict, mandatory visa conditions'. Two days later, what did we have? Senator Wong admitted that the consequences of breaching these visa conditions were ultimately unenforceable—you've got to be kidding me—because breaching a visa requires that an individual be detained pending deportation, which the High Court had ruled was not applicable to this cohort.

After continued calls from the coalition to take action to keep Australians safe—because, I can tell you, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, and the coalition understand that the fundamental responsibility of the Commonwealth government is the security and safety of all Australians—the government finally introduced a bill at the end of the last sitting period, on 16 November. The government gave us less than two hours notice before the bill was introduced. But, even in that ridiculous time frame, let me tell you one thing—I was at the briefing with the Leader of the Opposition, Minister Tehan and Senator Paterson. We were given the legislation and we were told by Minister O'Neil, 'This is as tough as it gets. We are pushing the boundaries of what the law will entitle us to do. We can't make it any stronger.'

Guess what? We identified weaknesses in Labor's legislation, and let me tell you what they were. Labor's legislation did not stop paedophiles going near schools. What an omission. It didn't stop violent criminals from contacting their victims. You've got to be kidding me. It didn't allow the most basic protective measures like electronic monitoring and curfews. This is the legislation about which, at the briefing, Minister O'Neil had kept on saying, 'It is as tough as it can be. The government has gone as far as it can.' The coalition stepped in and presented six amendments to the government, and, despite the government telling us how tough this legislation was and that they were pushing the limits of the law, they had to roll over and accept all six amendments. Thank goodness the coalition was able to step in and clean up Labor's mess.

Since then, what have we learnt? The Albanese Labor government has now released at least 147 high-risk individuals into the community, and each day we wake up and find out that another high-risk individual—remembering this cohort includes rapists, murderers, a contract killer and a paedophile—has been happily released by this government into the community.

To say that Labor's handling of this issue has been an absolute debacle from the start is, quite frankly, an understatement. Last week we heard reports that one of the detainees—who refused to wear an electronic ankle bracelet and who is, by definition, a risk to the Australian community—had absconded. In other words, the Albanese government lost one. You've got to be kidding me. They let them out and then they lost somebody who is a high risk to the Australian community. He absconded and he was unreachable by our law enforcement agencies for days before he was finally located. And guess what? When asked about the matter, Minister O'Neil, far from taking responsibility, washed her hands and said: 'Oh. Well, that's a police matter now.'

And now for this week: and I have to say, this week the greatest fears of the coalition were realised. Yesterday, Monday, we heard reports that a convicted sexual predator, released by the Albanese Labor government, had been arrested and charged with indecently assaulting a woman in South Australia. This is a man who was once labelled by a judge, in sentencing this man, 'a danger to the Australian community' and 'an ongoing risk to women'. Hands up from the Labor government, though. They were prepared to compromise the safety and the security of the Australian people. And then today—these are possibly our worst fears—we heard reports that a further detainee, again released by the Albanese Labor government, a former ringleader of a child exploitation gang, had been arrested in Dandenong amid allegations he had breached his reporting obligations and had made contact with minors. This is a man who is reportedly a registered sex offender, previously alleged by police to have headed a prostitution ring which preyed on children in state care. A court was told how he once traded a packet of cigarettes for sex with a 13-year-old girl.

These are the types of people that the Albanese Labor government have let out. Forget the safety and security of the Australian people! A man that a judge says was a danger to the Australian community and an ongoing risk to Australian women, and a man whom a court was told once traded a pack of cigarettes for sex with a 13-year-old child—the Albanese government was prepared to let them out.

Now, since day one, we—the Leader of the Opposition; Senator Paterson; I, myself; Mr Tehan; and the coalition—have been calling for a preventive detention regime, and you don't need to be Einstein, quite frankly, to figure out why. It was to prevent the exact two scenarios that have now occurred in the Australian community. But that was all too hard. It was all too hard for the incompetent Minister O'Neil and the hopeless Minister Giles.

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

Senator Cash, I'm going to ask you to withdraw both of those comments.

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

It was all too hard for Minister O'Neil and Minister Giles, who, by their actions, have shown themselves to be incompetent in their portfolios. They have dithered and they have dallied. They have made excuse after excuse. They make excuses today, in relation to the woman assaulted in South Australia. They make excuses today in relation to the minor who's been allegedly assaulted. And meanwhile, what happens every day? There comes release after release.

If the government had acted earlier and moved to introduce a preventive detention regime as soon as the High Court decision came down a month ago—as the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, called for—the outcome may have been different. Make no mistake: this is a tragedy, born of a catastrophic failure of the Albanese government, and the government alone must be held accountable.

It is also possible that many of the individuals who have now been released never needed to be released in the first place. The NZYQ case related to a single individual. The orders made on 8 November concerned a single person. But, for some baffling reason, without the reasons for the High Court's decision, they decided to get ahead of the High Court, and the Albanese Labor government started releasing rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer—detainees, in bulk, before the High Court had even had a chance to put pen to paper. They could have used the intervening time to get ready. They could have ordered an assessment and evaluation of every single detainee. They could have put in place arrangements for contingencies. But they did nothing. With every passing day now, as we learn more about how the government handled this case, the scale of their incompetence and mismanagement becomes clearer.

NZYQ was a serious child sex offender. He raped a 10-year-old boy. The coalition cancelled his visa, with the result that he was put in immigration detention following his sentence. This was the case that was before the court. But guess what? The reason we're standing here today is the path followed by the Albanese Labor government, because, when this case came before the court, the Labor government made concessions, and those concessions are the key to why we are standing here today.

The government made concessions in a 'special case'. That is a document that records the facts put before the court, and the special case contains what the High Court called two important facts. The court put significant weight on the two concessions that the Albanese Labor government made on 30 May. The first was that NZYQ could not then be removed from Australia. The second was that there was no real prospect of the plaintiff being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. They made those concessions on 30 May even though they hadn't actually finished making inquiries about whether he could be resettled. Why in God's name would this government make those concessions and set the High Court on a certain path if they were not true? Seriously, they were continuing to make inquiries with other countries. As has been revealed by the High Court reasons in August, when they realised the magnitude of their stuff-up, they started making inquiries with Five Eyes partners.

Let us make this clear. They conceded there was no way NZYQ was going to be removed from Australia because no-one would take him. Then, after making that concession which forced the court's hand, they decided to go and check. Maybe, if the responsible ministers had done their jobs, we would not have landed where we are. Maybe this case would have been unnecessary.

The Albanese government has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted with matters of national security. It has shown utter contempt for Australian communities who, rightly, want the government to come clean on where these criminals are located and what they have been convicted of.

That is why we are going to be moving an additional amendment to strengthen the provisions of this bill. We will do this by moving an amendment requiring the minister to report to parliament any time one of these dangerous individuals is released into the community. This amendment will go some way to providing this much-needed transparency from this hopeless, hapless government, and I hope the government and the crossbench will see fit to support what is a modest but sensible amendment and to start cleaning up the mess the Albanese government has made.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again, heading down a dark but all too well trodden path in Australian politics: a race to the bottom on refugee policy and a race to the bottom on immigration detention policy. We all know how this is going to end and we all know that it's not going to end well because we've seen this story time after time in this country and we've seen the tragic ending to this story time after time, where innocent refugees are murdered, where innocent refugee children are subjected to sex abuse, where innocent refugee women are raped, where innocent refugees and people who sought asylum in this country are detained indefinitely and tortured because the Labor and Liberal parties have a dark vein running through their political circuitry. If there is one thing they can agree on, it is that refugees are there to be brutalised and dehumanised and to have their human rights trampled. The instinct to collude in order to brutalise and demonise refugees runs all too strongly through the veins of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in this place.

The Australian Labor Party has not just handed over the drafter's pen to Mr Dutton, allowing him to draft anti-refugee legislation that the Labor Party will support, but is now handing over chamber management duties to the opposition. Mr Dutton is not just running the government's policy, he is running the business of the government in the Senate. The Labor Party has just voted for a Mr Dutton motion to manage their hours, a Mr Dutton motion to jam through a bill which has had attached to it 70 pages of amendments with an explanatory memorandum that is so big it needed to be bound into a book—and we got it three hours ago. This is a shameful way to legislate.

We are dealing with a fundamental human right here, the right to liberty. That is not an absolute right, but it is a critical right. It should not be overridden nor curtailed without the most careful consideration, but here we are with an explanatory memorandum of nearly 150 pages and with 70 pages of amendments, as well as the original bill that we are debating. This is legislation that severely curtails liberty in Australia for a small group of people in a way we would never dare to try on citizens—but we can do it because we are a bunch of xenophobes. That is what this legislation is. It is xenophobic by definition. It only applies to foreigners.

We have seen where this path ends, but it is worth noting how we take the steps down it. It is a pattern that has been repeated in recent Australian history over the 20-plus years since the Tampa appeared over the horizon. We all know what happened back then. Former prime minister John Howard saw a political opportunity available to him through demonising a group of desperate and innocent people who were seeking asylum in Australia, people who had been through the most horrendous experience on the high seas. The Murdoch media came in behind the LNP and magnified the confected emergency that Mr Howard and Mr Ruddock created at the time, and the Labor Party rolled over in craven capitulation. We saw it again in 2013, when the Labor Party was in government and the next iteration of offshore detention was created, another dark and bloody stain on our country's national story. We have seen it again over the last few weeks post the High Court's recent decision which, quite rightly, rendered indefinite immigration detention unlawful in Australia.

We've seen the confected emergency from Mr Dutton. We've seen News Corp and far too many other journalists from a range of media outlets in Australia credulously reporting the lies of the opposition, credulously reporting that, somehow, every person caught within the scope of that High Court decision was some kind of vicious criminal, when nothing could be further from the truth. I've sat through interview after interview by ABC journalists who enthusiastically and credulously ran Mr Dutton's speaking points at me. I expect that from Sky, but I don't expect it from the ABC. It's disgraceful. There have been honourable exceptions, but collectively the press gallery in this country needs to take a good, long look in the mirror and realise that they play a critical role in this dark and bloody path that this country walks down in regard to refugee policy and immigration detention policy.

Shame on every journalist who has failed to call out the lies of the opposition. Shame on every journalist who has bought the frame that somehow all of the people caught within the High Court decision are hardened criminals, when we know many of them have never been convicted of a crime in their lives. We know there are people who have been living in the community peacefully for a long time that are now caught under the scope of this legislation because it's shoddily drafted and has been rammed through in haste.

Colleagues, the way we treat refugees is instructive, so I'm telling you now—and I'm telling the Australian people now—that the way the Labor and Liberal parties treat refugees is the same as they would treat the rest of Australia if they thought they could get away with it. They would ride roughshod over your human rights if they thought they could get away with it. How do we know that? It's because they're prepared to do it to a group of people just because of their visa status or just because they are foreigners.

What we're facing here is rushed, shoddy, xenophobic legislation. This is a dark, dark day in the Senate's history, and you can add it to a range of dark, dark days in the Senate's history. Time after time in this place, the major parties have got together to do over refugees and do over people who are seeking asylum. We live in a settler colonial society in Australia, and we have had trouble with the concept of liberty in this country since the first convicts arrived over 200 years ago. We have never come to grips with the critical right to freedom and liberty. This place was founded as a carceral state, and it exists as a carceral state today. This debate is proof of that. It is clear and obvious proof that we're a prison state. When it all gets too hard, we just reflexively lock people up.

Let's be really clear about the group of people that this legislation deals with. It is a small group of people, some of whom—not all—have been convicted of crimes. In at least a small number of cases, they have been convicted of heinous crimes. That is absolutely true, just as, on a regular basis, Australian citizens are convicted of heinous crimes. The difference is that, if you're an Australian citizen, you get sentenced by the courts, you do the time and then you come back out into the community. You're given an opportunity to rebuild your life. Some people don't. They reoffend. They're dealt with again by the justice system, and back into prison they go. But, for this group of people, it's a different regime entirely because they're foreigners. You understand: we are a xenophobic Senate. We deal with foreigners differently than we deal with Australians. But, when this group of people are convicted and sentenced by the courts under our Constitution—which makes it clear that the power to punish is reserved only for the courts, and not for politicians—they are imprisoned, and then, when they come out of prison, they are thrown into indefinite immigration detention. They are punished twice for the same crime.

Indefinite immigration detention, we now know, was never lawful; the detainees were unlawfully detained by the government—punished twice, with the second punishment unlawful. Now, the Labor and Liberal parties want to punish them a third time, and the only reason they can be punished a third time is because they are not Australian citizens. If another country was doing this to Australian citizens abroad, the Labor and Liberal Parties would be up in arms about it. But because it is Australia doing it to a bunch of refugees and people who sought asylum in this country, that is okay by the Labor and Liberal parties.

So here we go again, as I've said, a range of offences is created by this legislation, some of which have mandatory sentencing attached to them. I'll remind all Labor members in this place that mandatory sentencing is starkly contrary to Labor Party policy. I mean, I have to ask: What is the point of being a member of the Labor Party? They go through all these conferences—these big events—they generate policy, and their senators and MPs just come into this place and ignore it. I tell you what, you wouldn't get away with that in our party, and rightly so. We would be held to account if Greens senators and MPs acted in this way, but the Labor Party is quite happy to give the finger to its members because it has no respect for its members and no respect for its own policy. The only thing it has respect for is Mr Dutton.

We have heard a lot about community safety in this debate. Make no mistake, Labor's position on the bill is not about keeping our communities safe; it is actually about keeping the Labor Party safe from Mr Dutton. That is what we are dealing with here—a confected emergency, spun out of thin air by Mr Dutton, the toadies in News Corp magnifying it, happily reporting the opposition's lies, and the Labor Party on script, on brand, cravenly capitulating at the first available opportunity. They've not only handed over the power to draft legislation to Mr Dutton; they have handed over chamber management responsibilities today to Mr Dutton. It beggars belief that the Labor Party would have so little pride and so little backbone that they would be prepared to allow Mr Dutton to run roughshod over them in this fashion. This is a dark, dark day for the Senate and, tragically, we know how this is going to end.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Labor government is an omnishambles. It is an omnishambles on steroids because what we have seen under this Labor government is a government that is prepared to sit around the cabinet table but which is not prepared to take the tough decisions to keep Australians safe, because the Commonwealth government has one job. Its main job is to keep Australia safe and to keep Australians safe. But under this government, under this omnishambles-on-steroids government, we've seen released rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer. So the question you would put to Australia is: Do you feel safer today than you did a month ago or 18 months ago? Because this Labor government is continuing in the 'proud' tradition—and I use 'proud' in inverted commas—of previous Labor governments of being weak at protecting Australians when it comes to securing our borders. Remember that it was under the previous Labor that we had over 50,000 illegal arrivals come to this country by boat. We had thousands die at sea because of the previous Labor government, and now we have cabinet ministers whose arrogance is only exceeded by their incompetence. Their incompetence and their failure to understand how to run their departments and how to keep Australians safe has now put at risk Australians.

That High Court decision was telegraphed back in June of this year. Considering the importance of this particular case, any responsible minister on top of their brief would have prepared for all options, but not this arrogant government that believes it knows better than anyone else, not this incompetent government that failed to prepare to protect Australians, not this omnishambles of a government. It is a government that last week attacked Peter Dutton. It attacked him personally. Peter Dutton, a police officer—

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

Order! You need to use the correct titles for members in the other place.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government attacked the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. Mr Dutton is someone who has spent his life keeping Australians safe. He worked as a police officer in the sex offenders squad in Queensland. He is someone who worked for the National Crime Authority. He is someone who has come to Canberra to keep Australians safe, bringing the skills he learned as a Queensland police officer. And what did Labor ministers call Mr Dutton? They called him a protector of paedophiles. This is the modern Labor Party for you—this chaotic, catastrophic government that isn't keeping Australians safe. It is blaming Peter Dutton.

I'm not keen to agree with Senator McKim, but he is correct: Mr Dutton, as Leader of the Opposition, is perhaps the most powerful Leader of the Opposition this country has ever seen because of his ability to set the agenda and because of what is happening in this chamber at this particular moment in time. It is Mr Dutton, it is Senator Cash, it is Senator Paterson, it is Mr Tehan who are setting the agenda—

G overnment member s interjecting

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

Order! Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Those on my right, you were heard in silence. I would ask you to respect the standing orders and not interrupt. Senator McGrath, you have the call.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Mr Dutton, it is Senator Cash, it is Senator Paterson, it is Mr Tehan who are setting the agenda, because they understand that the No. 1 job of this government—of any government—is to keep Australians safe. But this government is not doing that. It is the opposition that is setting the agenda. It is the opposition that is toughening up the government's weak laws, because what we have been seeing this week and last week and the week before is a catastrophic failure when it comes to protecting Australians, and that is shameful.

It is a shameful reflection upon those who sit around the cabinet table. It is a shameful reflection upon this government that you aren't keeping Australians safe—that you aren't keeping Australia safe. So this opposition, this coalition of the Liberal and National parties, will proudly move the amendments to toughen up this legislation. We'll proudly, as we have done this afternoon, bring on this legislation for debate because we want Australia to be safe. We want Australians to be safe. I encourage those in this chamber to support the amendments being moved by Senator Cash because, under this Labor government, rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer are wandering the streets of Australia. The question I put to my fellow Australians is: do you feel safer today than you did a week ago, a month ago or under the previous coalition government? Australians aren't feeling safer.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is astounding the way Labor has just surrendered government and the political direction to Peter Dutton and his mates over there—just astounding!

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

Senator Shoebridge, remember to address members of the other chamber by their correct title.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry; it is astounding the way Labor has delivered government and political direction to Mr Peter Dutton and his mates over there. It is just an astounding national surrender, not only to surrender the direction of government to the coalition, led by Mr Peter Dutton, but to attach onto this noxious legislation two of the most appalling provisions that offend pretty much every legal principle in the book.

The first one is future crime, also called preventive detention. The second one is mandatory sentencing. They are two things that Labor, in opposition and even as recently as in their 2023 national platform, rejected and said are offensive to the legal system and have the impact of reducing the independence of the judiciary. They are two things that Labor said, in opposition and even as recently as in the 2023 national platform they adopted, they'd never do. And now, as they follow on meekly behind Mr Peter Dutton and the coalition, with their heads bowed in political surrender to the coalition, they're putting both those things in the one piece of legislation, which is targeted overwhelmingly at refugees. You couldn't make up a bigger political surrender, a bigger moral surrender, a bigger surrender of principles than what Labor is doing with this legislation, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023.

Did I mention that they gave the whip hand to the coalition throughout all this? We're only having this debate now because they just collapsed; they wilted in the face of the slightest pressure from the coalition in the chamber today. They wilted like a lettuce leaf on a hot lawn. That's Labor and its principles when the coalition and Mr Peter Dutton just press their buttons—utterly pathetic!

What is wrong with preventive detention, better known as future crime? One of the key problems is that that's not what our courts are designed to do. In our legal system, courts are designed to find out what happened in the past and determine matters of fact. Never, until Labor and the coalition started experimenting with it in the last two decades, did courts and our legal system engage in predicting future crime. It's just not what our courts do. It's not their fact-finding mission. They don't have skills and they don't have legal structures to enable them to work out future crime. You can hear this said by senior members of the judiciary both current and retired.

What is the tool that the Commonwealth has been using to predict future crime and handing up to judges as though it's actually credible? It's called VERA-2R. It is some kind of assessment matrix that was initially an international design. The VERA-2R model is partly funded by Home Affairs—that home of Pezzullo integrity! It is funded by Home Affairs, promulgated and handed out by Home Affairs and tended to courts by Home Affairs. VERA-2R is this assessment tool of our future crime.

What do we know about VERA-2R—the thing that, no doubt, is going to be relied upon by Home Affairs and the Commonwealth DPP when they're trying to keep people in jail under this new, preventive detention regime? The VERA-2R report has been found to be grossly wanting. There is a previously secret review of VERA-2R called the Corner report, commissioned by Home Affairs and done by Dr Emily Corner and Dr Helen Taylor. Home Affairs had the report for months and months and refused to give it to courts, because it was inconvenient for them—misleading courts. The Corner report, paid for by the Commonwealth government, reviewed VERA-2R and another even more flawed tool called Radar in detail and said this:

The lack of evidence underpinning both instruments has potentially serious implications for their validity and reliability. Without a strong theoretical and empirical basis for factor inclusion, it is not reasonable to anticipate that the instruments are able to predict their specified risk with anything other than chance.

It is no better than a guess as to whether anybody who is covered by this preventive detention regime is likely to commit a future offence. It's just pure guessing. The tool that's used by the Commonwealth in doing this is a joke. It's a joke, except it has real-life impacts, because they come up with this matrix, they go up through the VERA-2R assessment tool and—pop!—out pops a number. If it's over a certain level, they say, 'Oh, well then that person is at risk of future offending, and they should be kept in jail.' You may as well just roll a dice. If it's four, five or six, you stay in jail, and if it's one, two or three, you get out. That's what the VERA-2R assessment tool is. It's no better than rolling a dice.

Is it any wonder that the legal system says, 'Actually, this degrades us'? Making them guess based upon grossly flawed assessment tools about whether or not someone is going to commit a future offence degrades the judiciary. It brings into disrepute the legal system. But, because Labor is so spineless, it is just signing on to preventive detention. They're scared about a Ray Hadley rant or a Daily Telegraph rant. Whatever the coalition wants, Labor will deliver—and they will deliver it quickly and fast, because they just want to be done with this. If they have to put a couple of people in jail for the rest of their lives, even though there's no evidence about future offending, well, Labor are willing to pay that price. Labor will keep a couple of people in jail forever based on a flawed tool and broken legal reasoning because they want to get out of a political mess. They haven't got the spine to stare down the coalition's scare tactics. That's what's happening here.

And then we get to mandatory sentencing. If the future-crimes abuse of the legal system isn't enough—did I mention the use of the Pezzullo-credible VERA-2R assessment tool?—Labor has decided to go the coalition's extra beat-up-on-refugees step. That is to put in mandatory sentencing. Labor's own 2023 national platform said, 'Mandatory sentencing is wrong in principle and wrong in practice.' You said you wouldn't do it, because it removes judicial discretion, erodes the independence of the judiciary and provides unfair outcomes. That's what you say on the national platform, delivered, apparently, by Labor Party members across the country. It was signed off just a few months ago. But, of course, the parliamentary Labor Party don't feel constrained in any way by the principles of their party members, and they just come in here, sell their members, the national conference and the public down the river, and whack in mandatory sentencing. They are willing to put people in jail for a guaranteed year if they're late back home by 15 minutes one night. Those people will go to jail for a year, with no discretion. If you're home late by 15 minutes, you will be subject to mandatory sentencing and will go to jail for a year. This is brought to you by the Labor Party as the subcontractors of the coalition—the wholly owned subsidiary of the coalition.

Why not just open a sort of Liberal-light branch and have a quiet rule in the next Labor Party national conference, with a little asterisk at the top, saying, 'Whatever we say here, if Mr Peter Dutton puts the heat on us, we'll just junk it'? You should have that little asterisk and exemption on the next national platform: 'Whatever our principles and whatever we say in the election or in opposition, if Mr Peter Dutton puts a blowtorch on us, we'll just junk it.' Just be honest, because that's what's happening here. This is a gross surrender of principle, it's a gross surrender of political direction and it's one of the worst examples of government I've seen.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too stand to make a contribution on the really important Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 but, most particularly, to once again draw the attention of those listening in the Australian public to what an absolute shambles this government has made of the most important job that it has, and that is managing our national security and keeping Australians safe. What we've seen on complete, utter and full display over these last few weeks is the fact that this government is just not up to being a government, to keeping Australians safe or to managing our national security.

Given that Justice Gleeson belled the cat some months ago about the fact that it was highly likely that the prospects for the defendants in this case were not going to be very good, the government were caught completely flat-footed and surprised when all of a sudden they got the decision that they did. So, in a kneejerk reaction, without bothering to seek advice to understand what the actual decision of the High Court really meant and go through it to make sure that they didn't take any actions that potentially could be adverse, the government, as I said, completely wet the bed and let in excess of 100 serious criminals out into our community. A cohort that included murderers, paedophiles, rapists and even a contract killer were let free into our community.

Let's not forget that on 14 November, following the NZYQ case, Ministers O'Neil and Giles said in a joint statement that the released detainees 'have been subject to a range of strict, mandatory visa conditions'. We know that's simply not true, because all of those conditions had no means of being enforced. You can say what you like but, if you don't have the mechanism to make sure it actually happens, the conditions are not worth the paper that they're written on.

The government's incompetence continued well past this. First of all, the first duty of government is obviously to keep Australians safe. The government failed in its first attempt to put any legislation into this place, because it clearly didn't go far enough. They said that they'd never written laws that were this tough, yet within a matter of minutes, when it was drawn to their attention that there actually were a whole heap of other things that they could do that were tougher—boom, boom—those things got done. If the government had been prepared when it was told in June what was before it—that the prospects were that it would lose the High Court case—it could have taken action then. The people we're talking about now are in our community and already committing crimes, in breach of their release orders and visa conditions. They're already doing it, only a matter of minutes after they were let out of detention. The government could have prevented this happening by actually being prepared and putting in place the legislation for a preventive detention regime in the first place. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Paterson, here in the chamber, Senator Cash and Mr Tehan, in the other place, have all been calling for—a preventive detention regime.

The other thing is that the government has been caught out not always telling the truth. We know that Minister O'Neil said that the reason they hadn't done any work in relation to being prepared for the decision when it came down was that they had advice that they would win. We know that that is absolutely not the case, because Justice Gleeson made it very clear some months ago that they should be preparing for the worst and that their prospects weren't good.

The government needs to explain, not to us in this place but to the general public, why it overreacted and released over 140 detainees, when clearly the decision applied only to the plaintiff NZYQ. The High Court's ruling—if you bother actually to analyse it—was quite narrow. We have an absolutely hopeless Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and a hopeless Minister for Home Affairs, but they need to face up to the Australian public and tell them why they released these people into the community. So far it seems to have been: 'Nothing to see here. We take no responsibility. We haven't done anything wrong.' Somehow, it's all a decision of the High Court, when the advice states that the High Court decision could quite easily have been contained to the specific circumstances of NZYQ. If it had been, many of these other offenders would not be out in our community at the moment.

It's not just the federal government who've been asleep at the wheel. Yesterday in my home state of South Australia we saw the terrible situation where a woman was sexually assaulted by one of the detainees who had been released. We've seen the South Australian Premier and the South Australian minister for police not really take responsibility. They've just said it's all the federal government's problem. Can I commend the shadow minister for police in South Australia, Sam Telfer, who has time and time again called on the South Australian government to take responsibility for the detainees that have been released into our South Australian community. Mr Telfer said in a press release that we cannot have 'a situation where hardened criminals with potentially dangerous backgrounds' that have been freed from detention 'are "just on the loose" in South Australia and the community is not told'.

The sad thing is that the South Australia community was told about it by the Herald Sun, not by their government or police agencies. We saw the following today in the Herald Sun:

Two convicted child sex abuse offenders are loose in one state after their release from immigration detention, the police have confirmed.

South Australian Assistant Commissioner of Crime John Venditto said police officers were monitoring the two registered sex offenders from a total of six former detainees now free in the state following November's High Court decision striking down indefinite detention.

"We know where they are, we visit them," the assistant commissioner said.

"We give them the conditions. We make sure they don't go near children, we make sure children don't go near them."

The revelation comes in the same week 65-year-old former detainee Aliyawar Yawari fronted Adelaide Magistrates Court facing charges he indecently assaulted a woman just three weeks after his release from detention in WA.

…   …   …

Mr Yawari was previously jailed for assaulting three elderly woman between 2013 and 2014.

It is unbelievable. The interesting thing is that the assistant police commissioner went on to say:

… South Australian police were notified when Mr Yawari entered South Australia and they received alerts from the AFP and the ABF when detainees crossed borders.

And here's what he said:

We in South Australia, visit all of them. We go face to face. We meet them. We verify their identity and welcome them to South Australia.

So my question is to the Premier, Peter Malinauskas, and the police minister, Joe Szakacs: are you welcoming these sorts of people into my home state? I would like to know if that's what you consider your duty of responsibility, in looking after the citizens of South Australia—that you 'welcome' rapists, paedophiles, murderers and even, potentially, a contract killer, should they decide to visit South Australia? You are going to welcome them into South Australia? It is quite extraordinary.

We've seen the opposition leader in South Australia, the shadow minister in South Australia, asking questions about this, and yet all we have received so far from the government have been quite flippant responses. Only last week, on 28 November, Mr Telfer, the shadow police minister, asked a question of Mr Szakacs, as the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services: 'Are there any community safety risks to South Australia due to the recent immigration detainee released by the federal government?' And guess what Mr Szakacs's response was? 'It's got nothing to do with us. It's not the fault of the federal government. It's all the High Court's decision.'

So we have a situation here where we have six detainees in South Australia—despite the fact that last Tuesday Mr Szakacs thought that there were only five—who've been released from federal detention as a result of the decision and are here in South Australia. But what Mr Szakacs went on to say—and I'll read it into Hansardin response to these questions was: 'In any case, no matter the individual, no matter the way they find themselves in South Australia'—et cetera, et cetera—'they are subject to the laws of this state. The laws of this state are applied by the South Australian police. They do so in a very profound way. They do so in a very good way. And I can give the member for Flinders and his question the assurance that the South Australian police force continues to keep our community safe, no matter who you are and which manner you find yourself in South Australia.'

Well, I'd say to you, Mr Szakacs: why don't you go and say that to the woman who was the victim of Mr Yawari's attack in South Australia? This attack has now required this detainee to be returned to detention. I would say to the South Australian government: you can't wash your hands of your responsibility for looking after Australian citizens. And, if the police minister actually thinks that it's okay to welcome these people into South Australia, and if the police minister thinks that everybody in South Australia is safe because of that, he clearly is very much mistaken, as we've seen by the terrible news reports of what happened in South Australia this week.

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

The time for the debate has expired. We now come to Senator Roberts's second reading amendment which was circulated earlier.

Sorry, Senator Hanson?

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

It was my second reading amendment.

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

No, we have two, Senator Hanson. You have not yet moved yours, which you would need to do by leave. And we have Senator Roberts's, which has met the two-hour threshold and so can be dealt with without leave. The question is that Senator Roberts's second reading amendment on sheet 2260 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move the second reading amendment in my name on sheet 2277:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to:

(a) enable the immediate deportation, without right of appeal, of any bridging visa holder who attends a rally which advocates racism, violence or discrimination; and

(b) increase the term of imprisonment to 25 years for bridging visa holders who commit serious criminal offences and enable the immediate deportation of those persons on their release from prison".

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

The question is that Senator Hanson's second reading amendment on sheet 2277 be agreed to.

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

The question is that the bill be read a second time.