Posts

The Deportation Failure: 102,000 People Lingering

,

I questioned officials from the Department of Home Affairs on the government’s failure to deport over 100,000 individuals who have no legal right to be here.

There are 101,976 individuals who were refused a protection visa and have yet to be deported. Some of these cases date back as far as 1994.

I highlighted a recent case where a South African man was raided and detained at dawn just 24 hours after his visa was cancelled. The government clearly has the capability to enforce our borders and laws. So why, out of over 100,000 people here illegally, did the government only involuntarily deport 5 people in a single month? That’s a 0.005% deportation rate.

When I asked for an honest explanation, Minister Watt did what he always does: he resorted to name-calling and labels to avoid the discussion.

Australians deserve an immigration system that actually enforces the law, not one that picks and chooses when to act while tens of thousands stay here illegally.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to change the topic to deportation. According to your ‘Monthly update: onshore protection (subclass 866) visa processing – October 2025’, the total number of individuals that were not granted a final protection visa that have yet to be deported at the end of the period is 101,976. How many of those 101,976 rejected refugees or unlawful noncitizens are currently seeking merits or judicial review from a court or tribunal?

Ms Foster: We could go through that data for you. I’d just note, for the rest of the committee, that we just had a series of questions and that exact data was provided to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Should I just go through the Hansard? To save time, I’ll go through the Hansard.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Your reporting has a caveat that the 100,000 number includes anyone who has been rejected for a protection visa since 1994. Do you have any data on the distribution in terms of how old some of those applications were? For example, do you have any data on how many people have not been deported after being rejected for a protection visa more than five years ago or more than 10 years ago? How many are still lingering here?

Mr Thomas: We’ll have to take that on notice to get that breakdown for you.

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got that data?

Ms Foster: It’s to get the particular breakdown that you’re asking for and so that we can see if we can do it by year—year groups.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Ms Foster. It would be appreciated if it’s done by year, because some people seem to be lingering forever. Do you have a breakdown of how many of the hundred thousand are included in the temporary visa stock data? I would assume anyone who is in the country illegally without a visa is not included in the 2.9 million, but I’d like a more specific number—on notice?

Mr Willard: On notice. I’d note that, in that temporary visa figure—that includes bridging visas. Many of these would be on bridging visas, but—

Senator ROBERTS: If you could break that down too, please—

Mr Willard: I’ll have to break it down.

Senator ROBERTS: Break that down. This is my last question, Chair. In November, a South African man whose visa was cancelled after attending a Neo-Nazi rally in Sydney was detained by immigration agents in a predawn operation, according to the media, and faces deportation. That was just one day after the visa cancellation by Minister Burke. I highlight that, as it shows that you obviously have the capability to raid houses, detain people in the dark and get them deported. But you don’t appear to be using it. Out of the more than 100,000 people here illegally, your October report says you involuntarily deported fewer than five that month. That’s a 0.005 per cent deportation rate. Why aren’t you raiding these houses and deporting people who have no legal right to be in Australia?

Senator Watt: I thought you said earlier that you don’t associate with Neo-Nazis, but you seem very concerned about the fact that the government decided to deport one.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re hiding from a discussion—an honest discussion—by labelling me?

Senator Watt: No, no. I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, you’re making this a habit.

Senator Watt: I’m happy—

Senator ROBERTS: If you haven’t got the data and you haven’t got the logic behind it, just say so, and we’ll get it on notice.

Senator Watt: I’m happy for the officials to answer your question.

Senator ROBERTS: Good.

Senator Watt: I’m just a bit perplexed about why, on the one hand, you say you don’t associate with Neo Nazis but you seem very concerned about a Neo-Nazi being deported.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the fearful—

Senator Watt: You called them a Neo-Nazi. You just called them a Neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s what the media called them. So does that make me a Neo-Nazi because I’m discussing—

Senator Watt: I’m not saying you’re a Neo-Nazi. I’m just questioning—

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re implying it, Senator.

Senator Watt: No, I said earlier that you didn’t seem to be very happy when I said that you associate with Neo-Nazis—

Senator ROBERTS: Because what you said was not correct.

Senator Watt: and other extremists, but here you are, asking about the deportation of a Neo-Nazi.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the fearful, the stupid and the gutless.

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Thank you for that free character assessment, Senator Roberts.

Senator SCARR: Chair, please return us to some order—questions being asked and answers being given.

CHAIR: Thank you for that very helpful direction, Senator Scarr. If we can proceed in an orderly question and-answer fashion, that would be of much help to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to do that.

Ms Foster: Senator Roberts, we provided some data in response to the previous questioning about the numbers of people who are removed each year. If it would be helpful, we could quickly reprise that data.

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like, Ms Foster, is to know why one person, regardless of who he or she is, was able to be detained in the middle of the night, their house raided, but the other 102,000 were not.

Senator Watt: What makes you think that no others were treated similarly?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, in the answer to my question, perhaps you could tell me.

Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.

Senator ROBERTS: My answer is—

CHAIR: There is a point of order.

Senator Watt: Well, you make—

Senator SCARR: Questions are being asked now by the minister of members of the committee. Again, can I ask that we return to orderly—

Senator Watt: Well, okay. There’s a simple reason for that.

Senator SCARR: Sorry, can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: These are simple questions, Minister.

Senator SCARR: Can I finish my point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: They’re very simple.

CHAIR: Senator Scarr, yes, you can finish your point.

Senator SCARR: We’re running out of time. Can I just ask, Chair, that we return to the orderly process of questions coming from the committee members and being answered by the representatives at the table.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator Watt: May I make a point of order.

CHAIR: Can I respond.

Senator Watt: Sure.

CHAIR: It’s within the rules for the minister to respond to questions being asked by senators, but I would encourage the minister to answer the question rather than pose one.

Senator Watt: Sure. I’ll frame this not by asking a question. Senator Roberts has just suggested that the government has chosen to deport one person, who participated in a Neo-Nazi rally, and has suggested that the government does not deport—was it 102,000 other people?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why can’t you do the same—

Senator Watt: I’d be interested to know what evidence Senator Roberts has for that suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Your answer will be sufficient.

Senator Watt: I’m disputing your suggestion.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, then give me the data. That’s all I’m after, Minister—the data.

Senator Watt: You’re not very good at listening to data when it’s presented to you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the judgement on my questions. It’s now very, very clear what I’m requesting from you.

Senator Watt: Perhaps the officials could advise you with some facts, if you’re ready for that, about whether the government does deport other individuals rather than one neo-Nazi.

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s not my question. That’s not my question, Chair. My question is: why don’t you raid other people’s houses and get them out of the country as well?

Senator Watt: This is the point. You’re suggesting that doesn’t occur. Would you like facts?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I would—the number of people raided.

CHAIR: In a second, I will invite the officials to respond to your question, Senator Roberts, but I am going to call final question for you, before I need to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: That is my final question.

Ms Sharp: Senator, for the first three months of this financial year, 943 people were involuntarily removed from immigration detention. In many instances, they would have been detained from their home prior to being placed in immigration detention and then removed. In the previous financial year, we had 3,457 involuntary removals from immigration detention.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Sharp. Can you tell me the number of houses that were raided and people detained, on notice?

Ms Foster: In many cases, in fact, most cases, those people were in the community, and were detained by Border Force officers, and then taken into detention in order to be removed.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the number, please?

Ms Foster: We can have a look at that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I found that easy in the end, thank you.

Senator Watt: I look forward to you using those facts, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Labor’s Migration Reality

,

The Labor Government keeps telling you migration is coming down. The data tells a different story.

Right now there are about 2.9 million people here on temporary visas and another 1.8 million on permanent non‑citizen visas — a total of roughly 4.7 million non‑citizens.

That’s 4.7 million people competing for a home, clogging your roads, and filling your GP waiting rooms. Our infrastructure cannot cope with the scale of this influx.

This isn’t ‘sustainable’ — and it’s a disaster for the Australian way of life.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I’d like to discuss migrant numbers and stock data. Can I go to the number of temporary visa holders in the country first. The temporary visa holder stock data says that, at 30 September this year—which is the latest data, apparently—there were 2.9 million temporary visa holders in the country, and 2.53 million when excluding tourists and crew. Can you confirm, please, that that’s the largest number of temporary migrants in the country ever recorded in the month of September.

Mr Willard: I will just find those figures. The 2.925 figure you provided is correct. I’m not able to confirm it’s the largest number ever; I’d have to take it on notice and check every other month.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could—thank you. So we have the government saying that migration is coming down but we actually have what we understand to be the highest number of temporary migrants in the country for this season on record. The total number of migrants in the country certainly hasn’t gone down, has it?

Mr Willard: That figure has increased. Just so we’re clear, that’s temporary visa holders, so that includes people like tourists. It also includes, as I think you mentioned, crew visas, and it includes New Zealanders, who are in fact the largest cohort. The visa that New Zealanders have, through the trans-Tasman agreement, is technically a temporary visa.

Senator ROBERTS: But the 2.53 million figure excludes tourists and crew. That’s what you confirmed.

Mr Willard: Yes. I’d have to do the maths, but that looks about right.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding of what you said. So we’ve got a high number of migrants, and it hasn’t gone down. Now let’s turn to permanent visas. At the last hearing, the department confirmed there were 1.8 million people in the country on permanent visas. Do you have an update on that figure, or is that still the same?

Mr Willard: I do have that figure. I think it is about the same, but I can’t give you the precise number. I might
have to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So, adding the 2.9 million temporary to the 1.8 million permanent, there are now
4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not Australian citizens, correct?

Mr Willard: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a record for the number of visa holders in the country?

Mr Willard: Again, I’ll have to take that on notice to check the records.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it is, but I’ll wait for it to be confirmed by you. Can you give a breakdown, please, of the categories of permanent visas and their numbers, as per your latest data.

Mr Willard: Bear with me, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s okay. No need to rush. We just want it accurate.

Mr Willard: You asked for permanent visa holders?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes—categories of permanent visa holders.

Mr Willard: I’ll run through the figures here. The largest category is the resident return visa. I think last time we were at estimates we spoke about this visa. This is a visa that permanent residents can get once they’re at the initial travel period on their first permanent visa.

Senator ROBERTS: So they can return to the country.

Mr Willard: It’s called resident return, but essentially it’s a permanent resident renewing their travel rights on their visa. That’s 855,000. These figures are to 30 September 2025. There’s the partner permanent visa, which is 205,000. There’s the skilled migration visa, which is 447,000. There are parent visas, which are 38,000. Then there’s a range of other visas—child, other family, other permanent, and special eligibility, which are all smaller amounts, but there’s a range of other visas there as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you publish the number of permanent visas on issue like you do with the
temporary visa stock?

Mr Willard: We publish the Migration Program numbers every year, in terms of the Migration Program
outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that including the permanents?

Mr Willard: It includes all the visas issued in the context of the Migration Program for that particular year.

Senator ROBERTS: But not the total number of permanents?

Mr Willard: It doesn’t include the total number. We do publish a paper called ‘The Administration of the immigration and citizenship programs’, which has a lot of data. I’d have to come back to you as to whether it has that specific number in it.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me why you don’t publish the number of permanent visas on issue, like
you do with the temporary visa.

Mr Willard: Sure. I can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Net Negative Migration: Rebuilding the Lucky Country

,

Australia was once the lucky country—rich in opportunity and security. Today, families are working harder yet going backwards. Young Australians can’t afford homes or start families. Homelessness is rampant. This is managed decline.

Globalist agendas and net zero policies are stripping wealth from citizens while predatory, parasitic billionaires profit.

Farmers are under attack using the guise of “climate change” – reducing their ability to produce the food and fibre that’s needed to sustain and clothe the global population.

We’re seeing foreign-owned insurance rackets, radical content in children’s spaces, a growing war on Christianity, digital ID rollouts and censorship laws. Australia is being pushed toward a future of fear, surveillance, and thought policing.

Mass migration has overwhelmed infrastructure and law enforcement. One Nation will implement net negative migration—deporting visa rorters, overstayers, and offenders, and limiting new arrivals until Australia catches up. Our fight isn’t about race—it’s about patriotism, fairness, and preserving our identity.

One Nation will repeal Digital ID, Net Zero, and DEI measures, protect women’s spaces, enshrine free speech, and defend your right to protect your family. Australian wealth will stay in Australia to create jobs for Australians.

One Nation provides strong leadership and a clear vision. We will restore opportunity, security, and freedom for every Australian.

Australians have had enough. It’s time to put Australians first.

Transcript

For 30 years, Pauline Hanson has warned Australians the life they had growing up was slipping away. We were once a country so rich in resources, in harmony and in security that we were called the lucky country. Our national slogan was ‘She’ll be right’ because it always was. It’s now clear from talking to everyday Australians attending One Nation’s branch launches that Australia is no longer right. Australians are working harder and still going backwards. Social cohesion is unravelling in the face of over immigration, mass migration. Our children do not have the opportunities my generation enjoyed. Buying a home, starting a family and enjoying a life of peace and abundance is not in the future of most young Australians. This is called managed decline. Homelessness in Australia is rampant in a way that just a few years ago would have caused outrage. People now walk past the tent cities and rough sleepers, and, rather than outrage, they give thanks that they have been spared so far. 

Farmers are being demonised using net zero junk science, reducing their ability to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. The United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero is about transferring wealth from everyday citizens into the pockets of predatory parasitic billionaires who are being protected with a growing security state designed to control us not protect us. We now have ruinous electricity bills, racketeering from foreign owned insurance companies, perversion disguised as tolerance and sex instruction manuals written for young children available to read in the children’s section of public libraries. There’s a war on Christianity, often coming from fake Christians in very high office, and there’s an agenda underway to advance Islam over Australia’s national security interests. For everyday Australians these are all shock points causing and awakening. For those who haven’t yet been shocked, your time will soon arrive. Look around—internet age-gating and compulsory digital IDs are rolling out as we speak. Mis- and disinformation censorship laws are current being stage-managed into existence in the Labor-Greens stitch-up, based on the Morrison-Littleproud Liberal-Nationals government’s designs. This bill is designed to usher in a new age of fear—of late night knocks on the door and of family members being snatched up and sent to prison for thought crimes, as the UK and parts of Europe have been doing for years now. 

Australia is now suffering mass migration, with many coming here to build Australia and so many arriving to take a slice of what has already been built. Attendees at our branch launches tell me they no longer feel safe in their own homes. Their children are not safe playing outside, and our women are not safe walking after dark. Every day, with every new poll, it’s clear that we the people are waking up to the global agenda that the Labor Party, the Greens, the Teals and the globalist Liberals are promoting—an evil agenda designed to make the world’s predatory billionaires even more rich and powerful. 

Let me make my position very clear: immigration grew this country. Greek, Yugoslav, Italian, British, South American and Vietnamese arrivals all rewarded Australia for the opportunity we gave them, through their loyalty, hard work and endeavour. Some of them made their way into state and federal parliament—a wonderful example of the opportunity available to new Australians in their own home. 

I hope the changing political landscape in the near future will bring together Australian nationalists of all backgrounds and races to save this beautiful country from the greed of crony capitalists and the tyranny they’re spreading. Recent well-attended protests must have the billionaires and their political and media lap dogs terrified, as they should be. The common sense of the Australian people has thrown off the shackles of political correctness. People are realising the water around them is almost to the boil and action is necessary. 

One Nation offers strong leadership to restore opportunity, wealth and abundance for all. We will repeal the digital ID, social media age ban, all net zero measures and all DEI and related measures so our women are safe in women’s spaces and so Australia can once again know what a woman is. One Nation will enshrine freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and your right to defend your family in your own home, with force where necessary—castle law. Australian wealth will be invested in Australia, creating jobs for all who are here to work. 

I notice Prime Minister Albanese has just promised to loan almost $2 trillion of Australian superannuation money to America, to make America great again. What about Australia? President Trump is doing great things in America and for peace around the world. Wouldn’t it be great if our Prime Minister visited Australia and did the same thing here? When I hear misguided people talking about White Australia, one way or the other, I wonder if they have given this phrase enough thought. The world’s crony capitalists are all white and almost all male. Their tokenistic campaigns like net zero, transgenderism, DEI and feminism and their war on masculinity all stop at the door of their palaces of power in London, Geneva, Zurich and New York. Let me be clear: One Nation does not confuse skin colour with patriotism. Ours is not a conversation about skin colour. It’s a conversation about loving our country, pulling your weight and following our laws. 

In the Senate yesterday, I heard Senator Mehreen Faruqi use the phrase ‘white people’ derogatorily. I must direct a rhetorical question to Senator Faruqi. Senator, you realise your party is white, yes? The left see race where none exists or where it’s irrelevant to the matter being discussed, and that’s the definition of racism. The Greens are racist. How about we all stop talking about white people and instead discuss our real problems, starting with managed decline. 

Today, another Greens senator, another white male who is part of Greens party leadership, called every Australian who attended the recent marches for Australia ‘scoundrels’. Every day Australians concerned about where their country is heading are, according to Greens leaders, ‘scoundrels’. Marching under Australian flags? Scoundrels. Protesting peacefully instead of using violence, as the left often do? Scoundrels. If Palestine and Pakistan matter more to you than Australia, if you hate this country so much, might I recommend One Nation’s one-way airport express—we’ll take you to the airport, leave you there and put you on a plane. The Greens preach hate, division and separation to cripple people in victimhood, dependence and hate. That’s how today’s Greens get votes. Thirty years ago, Senator Pauline Hanson saw all of this coming. That’s why our party is called One Nation: to unite, liberate and strengthen all Australians as individuals and as communities and to strengthen us as a nation. We will defend the Australian ideal of one community made of people from many different backgrounds and religions, working together to lift all Australians. 

Our vision has nothing to do with skin colour or religion within the limits of social harmony. After all, every human has red blood. One Nation tells the truth and strengthens every Australian with the truth. We believe it’s fine to bring your own culture with you providing it fits in with and around our Australian culture. Do not try and change our culture, our way of life, to make room for yours. If you have come here to leech off our welfare and take for yourselves the wealth our forebears have created over hundreds of years then you can join the Greens at the airport. 

We will remigrate hundreds of thousands of people who have deliberately broken their visa requirements, finished studying or rorted the visa system and taken advantage of Australia. This includes deporting people who have deliberately broken their visa conditions, students who have completed their study and never left and the families who came with them. Since when did accepting students turn into accepting half their family permanently? It includes students who came here to study and never did study and visa holders who have committed an indictable offence. We will implement net negative migration and limit new arrivals until infrastructure and law enforcement can catch up with Labor’s flood of new arrivals. Net negative. We will reverse Labor-Liberal mass migration—reverse decades of it since John Howard doubled immigration. We will still allow a small number of workers with skills we need, especially in building trades, but that will be many less than the number of people who leave—net negative migration. 

The Prime Minister of Australia supports President Trump putting America first yet continues to put Australia last. I’ve heard the same message over and over at public meetings in recent years. Australia has had a gutful. Shut the gate. Tighten standards. Be careful who we let into the country—only producers. Preserve Australian identity and heritage. Australians wants our country back. 

/by

Immigration Appeals: The New Administrative Review Tribunal

,

We had hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) would be a significant improvement over the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which was overwhelmed with thousands of immigration appeals, often being assessed by Members who were friends of the Labor government. 

The new ART was supposed to be made up of Members based on merit, which would be a significant improvement—provided the new appointments are not again filled with Labor mates.

I proposed the creation of a new Refugee and Immigration Review Tribunal to handle only Migration disputes. This would alleviate the heavy caseload that is delaying decisions in the new ART and help expedite the overall review process.

Transcript

Thank you, Deputy President. We hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal would be a significant improvement over its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The old Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a failure. It was top-heavy with Labor lawyers, making it a Labor lawyer fest with appointments made based on a reward system for leftist-aligned lawyers, and there are plenty of them—lawyers doing the bidding of their Labor masters, pushing poor Labor policies, and enshrining woke and harmful leftist ideals. 

The Liberals and Nationals stacked appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, favouring lawyers sympathetic to the LNP. So much for justice under the uniparty! This stacking was a recipe for disaster and a significant reason why Labor’s jumbled and catastrophic immigration policy continues to fail Australians and continues to hurt Australians catastrophically. Look at the number of people who are homeless and who are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in their cars and in tents. If a noncitizen’s visa has expired or has been breached, to slow down the deportation process, the decision to deport could be delayed through an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a fact, and it was done many times, ensuring that there was a high chance that bleeding-heart Lefties would delay or overturn the decision. Few Australians know that there are currently more than 75,000 illegals in Australia right now. More than 75,000 foreigners are living here in Australia on cancelled or expired visas, taking up homes that could be used by those people who are currently homeless. The whereabouts of these illegals is unknown, and the government doesn’t care, with limited resources to locate these illegals for deportation. 

It’s welcome that the current membership of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be declared vacant and that vacancies will be filled on a merit based system. My concerns are that the Administrative Review Tribunal membership will still be loaded with Labor government favourites and that the workload will still create long waiting periods before appropriate reconsideration of major decisions. It would be better to remove the review process for immigration decisions from the Administrative Review Tribunal and consider the reintroduction of a refugee or immigration review tribunal, to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal does not become bogged down with migration appeals, as it is currently. Instead of a delay mechanism for illegals to exploit, abuse and avoid at Australians’ expense, we need to deport illegals. We need to deport more than 75,000 lawbreakers and free up housing for Australians—working families who are currently sleeping in their cars, in tents or under bridges. Australian families deserve roofs over their heads and beds for their children.

/1 Comment/by

Visa Violations and Deportation of Criminal Offenders

,

During Question Time, I asked Senator Watt about the number of criminals on visas who have been deported for violating their visa conditions, particularly those convicted of forcing young women and children into arranged marriages without their consent—a crime under Australian law.  I also inquired why so few visa holders convicted of crimes in Australia have been deported. 

Transcript | Question Time

Senator ROBERTS: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Last week the Australian Federal Police publicised the case of a father who was convicted of attempting to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages. For clarity: my question relates only to arranged marriages where either party is not given a choice. To respect the privacy of the children involved, my question goes to policy. Is human trafficking a 15-year-old girl into marriage sufficient grounds for deportation? If not, why not? 

Senator WATT: Thank you for the question. I don’t have details as to the specific case that you’re referring to, but certainly what I can say is that a breach of character grounds on any basis would be the basis for cancelling someone’s visa and deporting them from Australia. If it is the case that a crime has been committed in this case or that character grounds in general were found not to be satisfied, then of course the outcome of that would be that a visa would be cancelled. As I said, I don’t have enough details about the particular case involved, and you yourself said you didn’t want to go to the details of that case and wanted to talk more generally, but that is the general position when it comes to visas. If there’s any further information I can provide, I would be happy to do so. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the forced marriage of a child carries a nine-year prison penalty and 25 years if a child is sent oversee for the marriage. Australia Federal Police commander Kate Ferry described the offence as ‘human trafficking’, as does the Attorney-General’s website. Your answer downplayed a serious issue of women’s rights and contradicts your own website. Minister, with 91 cases of forced marriage reported to the AFP in the year to June, when will you start deporting the offenders, including the clergy involved? 

Senator WATT: Again, I don’t have the details of the 91 cases, and I’m not certain that they all involve people who are in Australia on visas. I want to fact-check that before accepting that that is the case.  

But, as I said, when it comes to visas that are granted to people to visit Australia, they come on conditions. Of course, any visa holder has responsibilities to the people of Australia while they’re present in Australia. Ordinarily what would occur is that if someone is convicted of an offence—and I don’t know whether any of these individuals have been convicted of offences. But if that were to occur then they would ordinarily serve their sentence in an Australian prison and, once they’ve served their sentence, that would be the time at which they would be deported, that their visa would be cancelled. Ordinarily, as I understand it, we don’t cancel people’s visas before we put them in jail, if they’ve committed an offence. They would serve out their sentence in a jail and then, on release, that would be the time that their visa would be cancelled. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how many arrivals on permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? For clarity, I don’t want visa overstays or deportations on technical grounds. My question goes specifically to a reluctance to deport for a serious criminal offence. 

Senator WATT: Again, I don’t have that level of detail with me, representing the Attorney-General, but if there’s information that I can provide to answer your question I’d be happy to provide that. What I can say is that, obviously, it’s a matter for police if there is an allegation of a crime. As I said, I’m not across the details of this particular report that you’re referring to. I’m not aware of whether the person has been charged or convicted, but it’s a matter for police— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Standing order 72(3)(c) says that answers shall be directly relevant to each question. I’m not after the details on this question. I’ve got them. What we want to know is: how many arrivals and permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you simply needed to have stood and said ‘relevance’. The minister was relevant. He indicated in the first part of his answer that if he could get more detail he would, and he is entitled to continue his answer. Minister Watt, please continue. 

Senator WATT: As I said, Senator Roberts, I’m happy to provide any further details in addition to anything that I do have here. What I am aware of is that significantly more visa cancellations have occurred under this government than ever occurred while Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister. That’s something I can tell you. But I’m happy to come back to you with additional details once they come to hand. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to grounds for visa cancellations. 

The Australian Federal Police prosecuted the case—concerning the failure to deport a recent arrival who attempted to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages—resulting in conviction and imprisonment. Well done to the Australian Federal Police. The number of human-trafficking complaints to the AFP has increased, with the AFP receiving 382 reports including 91 forced marriage allegations across the 2023-24 financial year. A forced marriage involves the absence of free will. That’s why the Attorney-General’s website compares forced marriage to child labour and slavery. 

I thank the minister for informing the Senate that deporting criminals in cases of forced marriage is an option. The media, in part, reported this case using the term ‘arranged marriage’—it’s no such thing. Nonnas and yayas have been arranging marriages for centuries, and they’re still at it, so they must be getting something right. In this case, though, the father knew forced marriage is illegal in Australia, and his daughters refused to be trafficked. 

I would’ve thought that one benefit to this government bringing in 2.4 million new arrivals is the opportunity for us to keep the best and send the rest home. In the last week, we’ve seen thousands of new arrivals marching through the streets of our capital cities calling for death to other Australian citizens. Inciting violence is breaking the law. We’ve seen illegal terrorist symbols in full display. They have been breaking the laws of our country—to which these people have chosen to come—breaking and flaunting our laws. I shared the video from the Opera House of these same people chanting ‘death to the Jews’. The audio is perfectly clear.  

We’re letting in people who hate our culture and wish to replace it with their own past culture, which they abandoned and left behind. When faced with such a threat, One Nation believes an immediate outcome should be the deportation of criminals. 

Question agreed to. 


/2 Comments/by

Labor’s Failure to Deport Dangerous Non-Citizens

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator Watt why Labor is not deporting unsuitable and dangerous non-citizens from Australia. He explained that those who had been in detention could not be deported, citing two distinct groups affected. The first group consisted of approximately 150 detainees released into the community following a recent High Court decision, 29 of which have re-offended since release and include individuals convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual offences.

The second group comprises individuals whose visa cancellations were overturned by the AAT due to issues surrounding the Giles Directive 99 scandal. Despite subsequent visa cancellations for some in this group, there have been no deportations from either cohort since the mishandling by Labor.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. My questions are concise and straightforward, and I hope the answers will be similar. In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of
approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?

Mr M Thomas: All of the releases from detention that we’re talking about with NZYQ were as a result of the new High Court test set in that case around the real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably
foreseeable future.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 37 of these men released into the community have a history of sexually offending, including against children?

Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April 2024, 39 of those individuals did have a previous conviction for sexually based offending.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that seven of these men were convicted of either murder or attempted murder?

Mr M Thomas: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 72 of these men had convictions for assault or violent offending, armed robbery or kidnapping?

Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April that number is 73.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of these released detainees have now illegally reoffended?

Mr M Thomas: I believe the deputy commissioner answered that question earlier today.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the number?

Ms Holben: 29.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What offences have been included in the range of charges, including the senior citizen brutally bashed and allegations of a sexual predator being active here?

Mr Outram: We did provide that evidence before the lunch break.

Senator Watt: We went through that in some detail before the lunch break.

Senator ROBERTS: You are aware of Mr Emmanuel Saki, a Sudanese man who was recently released from immigration detention. He has just been charged with the murder of another man here on 12 May this year. That was two weeks ago. Are you aware of that?

Ms Foster: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s now being done to deport these men?

Senator Watt: You’re mixing together a couple of different categories of people here.

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want them here.

Senator Watt: I’d point out to start with that, for all 153, I think it is, people who were released from detention as a result of the High Court decision, the government actually had those people in detention for a
reason. We don’t want them roaming the streets either, but the High Court has made a decision and we are bound by the law.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you deport these men?

Senator Watt: For starters, as we have gone through before, there are a range of protections in place for the Australian community surrounding these people, such as electronic bracelets, curfews and a range of other
requirements that no government has ever imposed on a cohort released from detention. Obviously, in relation to the NZYQ cohort, the government is in the process of applying for preventative detention orders, which would effectively see those people returned to detention. Before the lunch break, there were some questions about where that was up to. That’s the NZYQ cohort.

Senator ROBERTS: But there has been nothing done to deport them?

Senator Watt: No. I would say that one of the reasons is that the reason for the High Court decision is that the High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of those people being deported, because, for example, they were stateless. They don’t have citizenship in any country. It is not legally possible to deport them. Again, I’m paraphrasing. Officials can jump in if I explain some of this incorrectly. That’s the reason why those people haven’t been deported. That’s the reason why they are now not in detention but subject to all those other protections.

Senator ROBERTS: All of the 150-odd are stateless?

Senator Watt: I don’t think all of them are, but there were other reasons that it’s not possible to deport them. The officials might be able to explain it to you.

Mr M Thomas: It might be because we have protection obligations for them. It could be because they’re stateless. It might be because there are issues with identifying their identity or their country of origin. All of that
culminates in there being no real prospect of their removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you asked about the Saki case. That is a separate situation. As far as I’m aware, Mr Saki is not one of the NZYQ cohort. He was someone who had come to Australia and was given a visa
at some point along the line. The government cancelled his visa because of character issues or criminal offences—whatever the reasons were. He appealed that decision to the AAT. The AAT overturned the decision to
cancel his visa. He was therefore—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is that because of any influence of Minister Giles’s directive 99?

Senator Watt: We’ve spent the best part of two days discussing this. What I have been saying is that the direction that Minister Giles gave did ask government decision-makers and the AAT to take into account the
length of time someone had been here in Australia—

Senator ROBERTS: And their ties.

Senator Watt: but not at the expense of the seriousness of their offending. But the AAT has done what it has done, and for that case and other cases they have overturned the government’s decision to cancel those visas,
despite the fact the government, in the AAT, argued for the cancellation of those visas. Now Mr Saki’s visa has been cancelled by the minister, and he is seeking urgent advice from the department about the range of other cases that have come to light in the last couple of days.

Chair: I don’t want to be too hardline about this, because I know that there are different sections of the department that deal with both of these issues, but, Senator Roberts, just for your information, we have moved on
to outcome 3. I know that there might be some crossover and that the department will seek to answer your questions when they can. We did have extensive questioning about outcome 2 from yesterday onwards. We’re now in outcome 3. If that needs to be clarified at the table for senators, then, if you can, assist Ms Foster when questions arise. I know dealing with the different cohorts is difficult, but we’ll do our best to try to keep on track in that way. Senator Roberts, have you got a question?

Senator ROBERTS: Was the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 simply to ensure incarceration as an alternative to being detained for these men?

Senator Watt: Again, I might begin the answer and let officials explain further. The removals legislation, which the government has introduced and which has not yet been passed by the Senate and which the opposition has not agreed to pass yet, is for a different purpose. It was to deal with a different gap in our legal system. So maybe officials could pick up at that point with some more detail.

Ms Foster: There were two primary purposes to the removals bill. The first was to give us the power to compel people who had exhausted all legal avenues of remaining in Australia to cooperate with their removal so
that people couldn’t frustrate our efforts to remove them—by, for example, refusing to fill out applications or come to interviews—and to make it an offence should they not do that. The second element of the bill was to allow us to declare countries who frustrated our attempts to return their nationals to them countries of removal concern and to enable us to take actions about how we manage applications to come to Australia from those countries.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely, Minister, there was a way that the government could’ve addressed this issue before the decision in NZYQ was handed down. Why didn’t you?

Senator Watt: The High Court’s decision in NZYQ essentially went in a different direction to what the law in Australia had always been.

Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t pre-empt that at all.

Senator Watt: Look, we’ve gone over this at length in previous estimates hearings.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to border security then. Why is our border security policy being made on the run? For example, why has the number of surveillance flights by Border Force of our northern
borders by aircraft been reduced over the last year?

Senator Watt: Can I just say one thing. Of course, I don’t accept the proposition that our border security policy is being made on the run. We have increased funding for Border Force and border security to a level that
no government has ever provided, and Admiral Sonter, in his role heading up Operation Sovereign Borders, has pointed out that—I can’t remember the exact words—essentially, there has been no change to the policy settings for Operation Sovereign Borders. But the officials can talk to you about surveillance flights.

Mr Outram: Specific to surveillance flights, I have Deputy Commissioner Dale with me. There has been a reduction in hours flown. That has been for two reasons. The first is persistent mechanical issues with the fleet of Dash 8s that the Border Force has. The second, with the contractor that we employ, is their ability to bring on pilots. There’s a global shortage of pilots, and they’re affected by that. I might hand over to Deputy Commissioner Dale to give you more details.

Ms Dale: The commissioner has flagged that there has been a reduction in flying hours this year and the commissioner has already outlined the causes. I think the rear admiral will go to the point that, notwithstanding
the reduction in hours that we have had in the Australian Border Force, aerial surveillance has been maintained to the standard he requires—fortunately, through the augmentation of flights through the Australian Defence Force.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that signalling a decrease in hours flown in the future, then, if it meets the standard? Or is it going to be that, in the future, standards are changed?

Ms Dale: No. We’re working very closely with the provider to better understand the barriers. The commissioner has spoken to the issue around crew. There is a global shortage of crew for the fixed-wing aircraft
that we’re operating. It’s also true that from time to time we have mechanical issues that are reasonably frequent with any sort of piece of machinery, so they can sometimes be a factor.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the reduction in hours flown a reason for the recent increase in the number of successful arrivals into Australian waters of foreign people smugglers and their human cargo?

Rear Adm. Sonter: There’s no direct correlation there. On a regular basis, I look at what is the threat and risk, and I adjust the posture accordingly. As Kaylene Dale indicated, one of the beauties about this role and the
coordination role is that I have both ABF and Australian Defence Force assets to pull on for this mission. While she’s articulated the decrease from the ABF funded actual air surveillance, we’ve increased the ADF air
surveillance to ensure that we have an enhanced posture in the north-west.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it the soft policy of Labor Party governments in the past, enticing people smugglers to be prepared to risk the boat and cargo for such rich profits as a full boat of paying passengers for the Aussie Express?

Senator Watt: No. Never has been and never will be.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware, Minister, that Australians now feel unsafe personally in their own country due to this failed migration policy? We’ve got boats arriving, we’ve got people who are murdering people.

Senator Watt: I’m sure there are some people in Australia who feel unsafe. What I can say is that this government is spending more money on border security than we’ve ever done before. Unlike certain others, including people in the room, we are not running down and disparaging our border security policies—which is an incentive to people smugglers—and we are taking action to deal with court decisions that are not of the
government’s making and that the government opposed.

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t quoting of spending more money just a lazy way of saying you’re trying to do something? I look at your energy policy and never before have we spent so much money and we see the highest
price of electricity.

Chair: Senator Roberts, that is not relevant to this instance.

Senator ROBERTS: My point is that money does not equate to success.

Senator Watt: You might say that spending $569.4 million more in this year’s budget on things like more boats, planes and unmanned vehicles for Operation Sovereign Borders is lazy. I wouldn’t put it that way.

/1 Comment/by