|
senate vote 2023-11-28#8
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-08 15:22:26
|
Title
Matters of Urgency — Immigration Detention- Matters of Urgency - Immigration Detention - Condemn Government
Description
<p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Senator Paterson has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today. It is shown at item 13 on today's Order of Business. Is consideration of the proposal supported?</p><p> <i>More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in </i> <i>their places—</i></p><p>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>Order! Senators, if you're not involved can you take it outside, please, or lower it to a dull roar? The clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</p> <p class="speaker">James Paterson</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">The Albanese Government's multiple failures to protect Australia and keep Australians safe, including their abandonment of Operation Sovereign Borders, failure to prevent an unauthorised maritime arrival reaching Australia's coastline, failure to pre-emptively respond to the High Court's decision on indefinite detention, and inability to combat growing antisemitism and violence in our community.</p><p>Well, when I submitted this matter of public urgency—</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Senators</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Senators, I've already asked that, if senators aren't involved, they please take it outside. That's twice.</p> <p class="speaker">James Paterson</p><p>When I submitted this matter of public urgency, I did not realise just how timely it would be, because, a little bit more than two hours ago, the High Court blew a hole in the Albanese government's final excuse for their inaction to protect the Australian community.</p><p>Three weeks ago, when the High Court first ordered that the applicant in the case, NZYQ, needed to be released into the community because he was being indefinitely detained, I called on the Albanese government to introduce a preventive or continuing detention order regime. I said they could pick up what was in the high-risk terrorist offenders regime. I said they could adapt it and apply it to the highest-risk offenders in this cohort of, now, 141 people who've been released into the community.</p><p>The Albanese Government first said we couldn't act at all—'And, anyway, don't worry; we're only releasing one person.' Well, 140 people later, they have acted, but only partially and only under pressure from the opposition. What they did not do, and what they should have done—and what we now know they could have done from 9 November—was to have introduced a preventive detention regime to protect the community, because the High Court has given a green light to the proposal that the coalition has been talking about now for three weeks.</p><p>They said in their judgement, at paragraph 72, in relation to their order to release the plaintiff:</p><p class="italic">Nor would grant of that relief prevent detention of the plaintiff on some other applicable statutory basis, such as under a law providing for preventive detention of a child sex offender who presents an unacceptable risk of reoffending if released from custody.</p><p>This is exactly what we called on the Albanese government to do, and this is exactly what they said they could not do until they had the benefit of the High Court reasons. We now know they could have done that. We now know that these people did not need to be released into the community, that they in fact could have been redetained in custody on the application of the government to a court. The community could have been protected from that danger and fear which have been instilled in them when child sex offenders, rapists, murderers, contract killers and others have been released into the community.</p><p>The good news is that it's not too late. The government can now finally act, because it need not wait any longer. I presume that the government already has drafted legislation ready to go. I assume they won't make the same mistake they did three weeks ago in not being ready, and I hope this legislation can be introduced into the House of Representatives tomorrow morning. I am certain that the coalition would provide bipartisan support for the swift passage of a preventive detention regime. I think we could get it done this week; I think it could pass the House, the Senate and receive royal assent before the weekend. The government could begin bringing actions in the court immediately to take at least the highest-risk offenders in this cohort off the streets immediately so that they no longer pose a danger to the community.</p><p>This is a very important test for the Albanese government. We know they got it very badly wrong three weeks ago and we know that the home affairs minister and the immigration minister weren't ready. They have been contradicting each other in the media for weeks as to why they weren't ready, but we know they weren't ready. I really hope they don't make that same mistake again—I hope they're ready to act, because the community deserves protection. It is not good enough to simply put an electronic-monitoring bracelet and a curfew on some of these offenders but otherwise allow them out into the community. These are people who were in immigration detention for a good reason and they'd had their visas cancelled for a good reason. They had their visas cancelled because they broke the law or violated the character provisions of the Migration Act, and they had no lawful visa to be in this country. The only reason they weren't deported is because the crimes they committed were so heinous that no country in the world would take them.</p><p>That's exactly the definition of someone who shouldn't be free to move about our community, and this is the test for the Albanese government now. I hope, for the sake of the Australian community, that they don't fail this test again. I hope that tomorrow they're ready and able to introduce this legislation to act to protect the community. If they are, I am sure we will be able to facilitate the passage of this legislation on a bipartisan basis. It would be untenable for the parliament to rise before the end of the year and, over summer, expose the community to the risk that one of those serious offenders commits another crime against another Australian and we weren't ready to protect them.</p> <p class="speaker">Marielle Smith</p><p>I also rise to speak on this motion. What is becoming increasingly clear in this chamber, and in the other place, is that there is no issue too big or too small for Mr Dutton and his opposition to politicise. If you read out the words of this motion before us, it reads like a shopping list of things the opposition has sought to politicise: conflict in the Middle East and border security. These are pretty transparent attempts to seek political advantage using the same old playbook of Liberal parties past.</p><p>We can all remember the impact of the politicisation of these issues by previous governments. Indeed, I reckon some people in this place were probably motivated to run for parliament because of the impact of the politicisation of some of these issues under previous governments—and under the Howard government. We can all remember the impact of those on our national cohesion and the impact of those decisions on the sense of safety and security that members of our community felt. Just as it was true then, it is true now: talking tough on national security doesn't actually make our nation more secure. Stoking fear and division does not make us stronger—in fact, it can make us weaker. Hacking at the seams of social cohesion is a dangerous business because the way we talk about national security matters and the way we talk about national security can determine our nation's security. That's a sentiment that not just I hold. I am sure that is a sentiment that would be backed in by national security experts and backed in by those working in this space every day.</p><p>We have a choice in how we talk about these matters. We have a clear choice about where we draw the line between policy debate and politicisation. The first should absolutely be rigorous, but there needs to be caution in the use of the other. Of course it is not just how we talk about things; it's what we say—it's adherence to facts. Facts matter too. I implore all in this place and the other place if they're not going to strip the fearmongering from their rhetoric to at least make sure that their rhetoric is based and underlined in truth, because we have seen examples of jumping the gun in the press and elsewhere and weighing in on events without having the facts.</p><p>The opposition leader is attempting to steer our country down a path using a playbook that we have seen before. He's doing so without any degree of self-reflection on his own legacy: a legacy characterised by a broken migration system—they're not my words; they're the words of the independent comprehensive review—a legacy that talked tough on borders whilst cutting compliance officers at the same time and, indeed, what we're dealing with now in this chamber and the other chamber.</p><p>The opposition leader isn't prepared to engage in this legacy. Indeed, all he wants to do is play politics on the issues he can grab. If he's not saying no to everything and not opposing everything we as a government put up, he's seeking a political advantage, no matter the cost. There's division, fear and inflaming tensions when what our country needs is clear and calm leadership. These are political plays we have seen before. It is the playbook from the Liberal Party's past.</p><p>Our government is working hard every day to make Australians more secure. We welcome a rigorous policy debate on these issues. They're important and they matter to the security of Australians, but the rigour in that policy debate must actually be accompanied by caution in the political discourse that surrounds it because how we talk about these issues matters and how we talk about our national security has the potential to impact and determine our national security. It does so through its impact on social cohesion and it does so through its impact on communities within Australia, especially communities at the moment who are feeling a lot of hurt and a lot of pain. I am sure some are feeling that the political discourse is not doing anything to improve our social cohesion. If we don't have social cohesion, we don't have a secure nation. How we talk about it matters.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>It's very timely that the High Court has this afternoon released its reasons for its recent judgement that rendered indefinite immigration detention unlawful in Australia. It is a very timely release of reasons. It is critical that the entirety of this parliament and the entirety of the Australian media use the opportunity presented to them by the High Court today to take a deep breath, to calm down, to take a beat and to soberly reflect on what the High Court has published. The parliament as a whole needs to stop panicking, it needs to reflect on these High Court reasons in detail and it needs to reject the base politics of fear and division. Opposition leader Peter Dutton needs to stop confecting an emergency and a crisis, and the Labor Party needs to end its panicked and xenophobic response to Mr Dutton's confected emergency. Labor needs to stop letting Mr Dutton back-seat drive its legislative agenda.</p><p>Since the original High Court judgement, we have had two attempts at legislating by the Labor Party, one that was heavily amended before it shamefully passed through this parliament a week and a half ago. Another one is caught in limbo between the House and the Senate because the government is completely paralysed in fear of Mr Dutton. We have had about half a dozen different positions from the Liberals. This is no way to legislate. It is no way to run a parliament, and it is refugees who are paying the price.</p><p>Parliament needs to calmly consider the ramifications of this decision. Parliament needs to stop trying to undermine the High Court, stop trying to work its way around the High Court decision and this parliament needs to start respecting the rule of law. To Senator Paterson—the mover of this motion, the self-styled classical liberal—I must have missed the bit in John Stuart Mills's body of work that calls for arbitrary indefinite detention. I wonder if the words 'on liberty' mean anything to Senator Paterson and his colleagues—that, of course, being the title of one of Mills's best known— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-11-28.128.2):
- > *That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:*
- >
- > *The Albanese Government's multiple failures to protect Australia and keep Australians safe, including their abandonment of Operation Sovereign Borders, failure to prevent an unauthorised maritime arrival reaching Australia's coastline, failure to pre-emptively respond to the High Court's decision on indefinite detention, and inability to combat growing antisemitism and violence in our community.*
-
-
|