May 1, 2024
Shadow home affairs minister James Paterson has blasted the Albanese government for claiming the Commonwealth opposed bail for an immigration detainee allegedly involved in a violent home invasion in Western Australia.
Sky News Australia Senior Political Reporter Trudy McIntosh revealed on Wednesday morning that a senior government source, who had repeatedly maintained the government opposed bail, had conceded the Commonwealth had, in fact, not opposed the detainee's release after being charged with visa breaches.
The incorrect information provided to media was also included in the government's daily talking points distributed to MPs and staff on Tuesday morning, resulting in Communications Minister Michelle Rowland falsely stating details of the case in an interview with Sky News Australia.
Speaking on Wednesday, Senator Paterson claimed the mix-up was "inexplicable" given contemporary reporting from The West Australian stated the government did not oppose bail.
"There's really only two possibilities here, one is that the Prime Minister's office and the Home Affairs Minister's office lied to the media, to their Cabinet colleagues, to their Labor backbenchers, and, through them, to the Australian public," he claimed.
"Or, they are so utterly incompetent that they don't even know what position the Commonwealth took on the question of whether or not a released detainee who had violated the conditions of his visa should have bail or not.
"It's all the more inexplicable given there was contemporaneous reporting in the West Australian newspaper from the court room which described the Commonwealth position in detail and even quoted the magistrate in the case saying the Commonwealth was 'generous' not to oppose bail.
"What on earth is going on in the office of the Minister for Home Affairs and in the Prime Minister's office this is a total shambles."
In an interview earlier on Wednesday, Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil had accused the opposition of "playing politics" with the case, but refused to comment on "specifics" around why the detainee had not been fitted with an ankle monitor.
She also sought to highlight the government's proposed legislation which would threaten unlawful non-citizens with a minimum 12 months jail and/or a $93,900 fine for failing to cooperate with deportation efforts.
That bill, which was rushed to Parliament last month, has been delayed by at least six weeks after the Coalition and Greens teamed up to prevent its passage.
Speaking at the time, Senator Paterson claimed a "proper inquiry" was needed to protect against unintended consequences of the legislation, but insisted on Wednesday it had no relevance to the case in WA.
"This is an absolutely desperate attempt by the government to distract from their own failures," he claimed.
"The legislation before the Parliament now could in no way have applied to this person, could in no way have applied to this cohort it is aimed at dealing with an entirely separate issue."
The Senator then proceeded to list what he maintained was a series of failures by the government in addressing the issue.
"Number one: when the High Court made its decision (to free the detainees) the government was not ready and was not prepared to deal with it," he said.
"Number two: when these people were first released into the community they were issued faulty visas that were not legally sound and, therefore, when they breached their visa conditions the charges against them had to be dropped.
"Number three: when this person was before the court for a visa breach, the Commonwealth supported and allowed him to be let out on bail.
"Number four: when he was let out on bail he was done so without an electronic monitoring device; and number five they didn't use the preventative detention orders that the Parliament gave them to take dangerous people like this off the street."
Pressed on what he would have done differently, Senator Paterson went back to the concession by Immigration Minister Andrew Giles in the High Court case that some detainees faced no prospect of deportation and were thus being held indefinitely with no chance of release.
The shadow home affairs minister suggested the government could have won the case, and thus prevented the release of detainees, if Mr Giles had not made the admission, although he insisted there were still "so many things the government could have done" differently to minimise harm in the aftermath of the ruling.
"I have no confidence at all listening to the (Home Affairs) Minister on television this morning, listening to the Prime Minister yesterday that even today they are on top of this problem or that they have the strength to make the tough decisions required," he said.
