News about Australia

[Elger SmithParticipant]

The 12-hour rush to push through laws concerning the end of indefinite detention was alarming in its chaos

In the space of 12 hours on Thursday, the Australian Parliament passed legislation about what remains, to the public, a largely ill-defined and unknown group of people — but variously described by some of our MPs as “hardened criminals” and “absolute animals” — in a legislative exercise alarming in its chaos and deeply concerning in its origins.

There’s been a white-hot, polarised discussion about whether the government was doing enough, or not enough, in response to the High Court’s decision on November 8 to rule indefinite immigration detention unlawful.

We have been told there are three murderers and several sex offenders among the more than 80 people who have been freed from immigration detention.

Those with experience on both sides of politics tell us that, in general, the group more widely comprises people who were locked up indefinitely for good reason and in the interests of community safety.

Not all of them had been convicted of crimes in Australia but a large proportion of them — 78 — are owed protection.

Thanks to reporting by The Guardian’s Paul Karp, we know a document tendered in the High Court shows 21 of the cases related to “national security, cybercrime, serious and high profile organised/gang related, high ranking [outlaw motorcycle gangs] members”.

A further 27 related to very serious “violent offences, crimes against children, family/domestic violence” or “violent, sexual or exploitative offences against women”.

“Nine were ‘general cancellations’ for reasons other than character concerns, such as incorrect information in the visa application, change in circumstances, or the ‘the health, safety or good order’ of Australia”.

But the High Court has found that, whatever they have done, it is unlawful to just lock them up indefinitely. Which of course is not something that can be generally done to Australians who may have committed similar crimes.

Dutton’s brutal approach
It would be difficult for casual observers to realise that both sides of politics were in agreement that their preference was for all these people to stay locked up. But that is the case.

The politics has been driven by the populism of Peter Dutton’s Coalition which, through the week, has variously conflated the issue with the government’s approach to the Gaza-Israel conflict, the prime minister’s overseas travel, the spectre of criminals being paid welfare, and even the housing crisis.

The sheer political brutality of Dutton’s approach has created a lot of slightly awe-struck commentary about its effectiveness.

Equally, the perception that the Albanese government just rolled over and surrendered to the blistering assault shocked many observers — including within Labor ranks.

But whatever the genesis of what happened in the Parliament on Thursday — and at the risk of appearing old fashioned — the parliamentary process, and some scrutiny of the end result, needs to be recorded.

What happened on Thursday
In the Senate on Thursday night, Senators debated amendments that were circulated at 6.55 pm (having been negotiated throughout the day by the major parties).

Just over one hour later, the government’s legislation in response to the High Court’s decision, with amendments negotiated with the Coalition, was being voted on.

It is worth having a look at the record of the debate — the Hansard — if you get a chance just to get a flavour of the confusion that reigned about the impact and legal questions surrounding the measures.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-18/confusion-over-high-court-indefinite-detention-ruling-response/103119836

0

0

[Author]

Posts