News location:

Canberra Today 10°/13° | Saturday, May 4, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

New detention laws challenged in High Court

Shadow Minister for Home Affairs James Paterson says the opposition backs laws imposing strict conditions on people released from immigration detention. (Mick Tsikas/AAP PHOTOS)

By Paul Osborne in Canberra

THE federal opposition says there was “no alternative” but to rush immigration detention laws through parliament, as the first High Court challenge to them is launched.

A Chinese refugee known as S151, who arrived on a student visa in September 2001, is seeking a court declaration that a curfew and electronic tracking bracelet now part of his bridging visa conditions amount to punishment.

The new measures were included in legislation which Labor and the coalition fast-tracked through parliament last week, after the government was forced by a High Court decision to release 93 people from immigration detention.

Court documents lodged on Wednesday on behalf of S151 say the legislation allows imposition of “conditions that are inherently punitive in nature”, exceeding the authority of the federal parliament.

His lawyers say curfews are “typical of criminal sentences and house arrest conditions, not of administrative visa regulations imposed by the executive (government)”.

Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson stood by the legislation, which was necessary to protect the community.

Three murderers and several sex offenders are included in the group of released detainees, but many were also detained and awaiting deportation after committing more minor offences.

“There was no alternative but to rush it through,” Senator Paterson told ABC radio on Thursday.

“The alternative would see these people released in the community with no enforceable restrictions at all.

“In the end, we produced a bill that the government has described itself as constitutionally sound and I know they will rigorously defend it in the High Court in this challenge.”

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Australian Associated Press

Australian Associated Press

Share this

2 Responses to New detention laws challenged in High Court

cbrapsycho says: 23 November 2023 at 11:57 am

We release all Australian criminals into the community once they’ve completed their sentences, whether they’re murderers, child abusers or sex criminals, so what’s the justification for further restrictions on these people? For some of them who’ve not been convicted of any crime, this approach is atrocious, whilst for those who are criminals one wonders if we’re going to monitor them for the rest of their lives. A very costly exercise.

Reply
Curious Canberran says: 23 November 2023 at 2:46 pm

cbrapsycho have you considered this?
The Australian criminals you refer to released after a custodial sentence, are Australian citizens and the buck stops with Australia (and our legal system), to deal with that situation.
What we are talking about here though are people who are not Australian citizens.

From what I know, many are criminals of serious offences, and that is why they were never going to be eligible for citizenship, deemed a danger to the community and not to be released into the community.
Their Countries of origin won’t take them back.
We have our professional immigration services saying “do not release them – danger, danger !!” – what more of a warning do we need?

In your scenario, you are not wrong that Aust. criminals are released and may re-offend (yes some do).
But in this scenario, (and my opinion is that) our laws are not working for the safety and well being of Australia as these non-Australian people are given priority over the safety of Australia and its citizens.
I draw a line and say “NO”.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews