Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Watt. A recent media report has highlighted that on 475 occasions since 23 March the ART set aside visa cancellations for people with substantial criminal records. Sixteen of these people were found guilty of child sexual offences. At least 10 of these decisions were made under Minister Burke as home affairs minister. How many of these cases did the home affairs minister intervene in to ensure that child sex offenders did not retain Australian visas?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously I don't have those precise numbers with me as the representing minister, but if there is anything I can provide, I'll certainly do so. The question you're asking, I think, goes to actions of the ART to overturn decisions by the minister or his department to cancel visas for people who've committed very serious criminal offences. What that demonstrates is that the minister and his department have cancelled a visa of a criminal offender. They have taken the action that they can take to cancel those visas and deport those individuals, which is exactly what should be happening.

Of course, the ART, on occasion, will make a different decision. In our previous term of office, you might recall, we changed the ministerial direction that set out the conditions that the ART should take into account—another step taken by our government to ensure that Australians are kept safe. But, as I think you've suggested in your question, if the ART does make a decision to set aside the minister's decision to cancel a visa, that will go back to the minister for reconsideration. I know that in many, if not most, cases, the minister has made a second decision to cancel someone's visa. What that demonstrates is that this government is taking every possible action that is available to ministers to cancel visas where that needs to be done.

We, of course, do provide direction to the ART about the government's position on these issues. They are an independent body. We don't always agree with the decisions that they make. From Minister Burke's point of view, he has consistently taken strong action to ensure that those individuals who don't deserve a place in Australia have their visas cancelled.

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

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

A report in the Australian on 18 August referred to the case of a man in his 50s, who was convicted of multiple child sex offences, having his visa cancellation overturned by the Federal Court. This is a man that, according to the tribunal records, assaulted a 16-year-old boy at a bus station, forced him to a hotel and attempted to rape him. This was not an isolated incident. He had other convictions involving underage children. What personal action has the home affairs minister taken in response to this court decision?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I'm aware of the particular case that you're referring to, Senator Whitten. As I've said, the Australian government and Minister Burke take our and his responsibility to protect the Australian community from risk of harm by non-citizens very seriously. That's why, as I've said, the usual course in these situations is that ministers or departments have cancelled visas for individuals in similar situations to the one you're describing. The reality is that a decision to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa application is open to some forms of review. While I can't speak to the specifics of this case, I can confirm that the decision of the Federal Court is being examined. If we are talking about the same case, you are correct that the Federal Court did overturn a previous decision. I think it was either by the minister or the department. That decision by the court is currently being examined and whatever action can be taken will be.

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

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Home Affairs inherited ministerial directive 110 from the previous minister. It's a directive that has allowed hundreds of people with substantial criminal history to stay in the country, with at least 10 of those people being convicted of child sex crimes. Now we have the Federal Court overturning the ART's decision. These are people that have failed the character test and must be removed from the country. Will the minister commit to making a more substantial directive to the ART, strengthening migration laws and protecting the Australian people?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Whitten. I would certainly want to check those figures you've cited to ensure that they are accurate. As I've already stated, in our last term of office, the ministers at the time did create a new ministerial direction to the ART to make even more clear the government's expectations as to the sorts of things they would take into account when they're considering these types of matters. The reality is that we do have an independent ART, which makes these decisions about review applications that are made. I think the government has made very clear what its expectations have been, and, indeed, we strengthened those expectations in our first term. I might remind you, Senator Whitten, that there have been occasions where the One Nation party—despite its constant claims to toughen up on people—has actually voted the other way. We all remember that, after the terrible Bondi atrocity, when this government tried to strengthen legislation to deport hate preachers, One Nation voted against us.