Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Australia’s deportation policy is unquestionably corrosive. But as members have said, we do need a response and there is no disagreement about that. I believe the Greens, when they abstained on the 2015 bill, were abstaining as a matter of process as opposed to substance.

The real question is the scope of the application of the bill. Reviewing the Hansard of the first, second, and third reading speeches on the 2015 bill, it’s very clear that the intention of members was for the bill to apply to those coming through the system. You can see that by the suggestion that, actually, the bill should have been introduced before it was in 2015, because members made the point that we knew the numbers of people coming through the pipeline.

But I do agree with the principle of clarity of law. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

I’m still a bit miffed, but I’m learning. I’m learning.

💬 Golriz Ghahraman: Stop it!

And I’ve just been told to stop it from the Green Party, which means I can’t. I have to carry on. I have to carry on. Don’t encourage me; you know I’m a contrarian.

Actually, I do want to acknowledge the honourable member Ingrid Leary, who did point out that there is some constitutional good developing in this. There is some sort of engagement, as I understood it. You know, Parliament’s passed a law, and a court has made a decision, and now the Parliament’s responding to that. I accept that point, but I probably lean more towards what the Hon—sorry; well, soon to be, hopefully, the Hon—Chris Penk noted. There could have been more constructive ways. There could have been more constructive ways to have dealt with this.

I think at the heart of the question is not simply how we deal with Australia’s decision to deport what they call 501s and how we appropriately deal with that for the interests of public safety and, you know—to stress particularly the Green Party’s objections—how to look after those New Zealanders returning here. Well, I think, actually, that care, if you will—if that’s the right word to use—of those 501s of which these orders are required—the Attorney-General’s report actually indicates often parole, if not always parole, is used as more a rehabilitative than a punitive measure. So I think that’s relatively important to state.

But, again, my fundamental point—being probably far too serious—is that the Parliament thought it had made things clear enough in the original piece of law, and I think we are rightly here tonight to address a court decision and to try and make it as abundantly clear as possible what this Parliament intends.

And so I’m looking forward to the committee stage. I think that will be useful to tease out some various ideas. Minister Allan’s actually very, very good at addressing the questions. But I’m also hoping—coming back to my original thought of being a bit miffed, it will be fantastic if the Attorney-General will help my miffed-ness and get up and indicate and articulate a bit further around his report. Because, actually, without being silly, there’s really good thoughts and insights that he brings. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Debate interrupted.