Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (15:01): I thank the shadow minister for his question. Of course, it was the High Court that required the release of the detainees, and this government, like all governments, is required to abide by the decisions of the High Court. In respect of the issue he raises, I should be very clear about a couple of things. The first one is that, as he would be well aware—as all members would be well aware—this government does not comment on operational or individual matters. Can I also say to members in this place and to the Australian community that the Australian community should be assured that all efforts, coordinated under Operation AEGIS, are being made to track down this individual. Again, I commend the work of the Australian Border Force and the Australian Federal Police, working with state and territory law enforcement officials to ensure community safety. I might say two other things, if I may, on this. Firstly, the High Court has just handed down its reasons for its decision in the matter which led to this, a matter in which of course the Commonwealth vigorously opposed the case brought by the plaintiff. I make that very clear. We will be considering those reasons for decisions and, I hope, working with all members and indeed all senators to put in place a strong legal framework, an enduring legal framework, for community safety. But, on that note, I remind the shadow minister and all members that yesterday a bill passed through the House to strengthen the regime for community safety. Mr Dutton: And then you pulled it. You didn't take it to the Senate. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The minister will— Ms O'Neil: You didn't vote for it. Don't you remember? You didn't vote for it. Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Minister for Home Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition, I'm trying to call the member for Wannon on a point of order. Mr Tehan interjecting— The SPEAKER: I haven't called you yet. Just wait; you'll get the call when everyone settles down. Mr Wood interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for La Trobe is warned. Do not interject while I'm trying to take a point of order from the shadow minister. The member for Wannon has the call. Mr Tehan: It goes to relevance. The minister wasn't asked about the legislation, which had a lot of shortcomings yesterday. The SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House. Mr Burke: The question referred to the full number of people who had been released following the orders of the High Court. The legislation that is being referred to was directly relevant to actions being taken against those people. Those opposite might be embarrassed that they voted against those tougher conditions, but it's relevant to the question they just asked. Honourable members interjecting — The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wannon will cease interjecting. The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition—and the deputy leader, for good measure—will cease interjecting. The minister was asked a question about a specific individual. He is addressing the topic of the question. I am going to ask him for the remainder of his answer to keep it relevant to the original question. Mr GILES: I think the issue here is the shadow minister knows I have directly dealt with his question but he doesn't like being reminded that twice yesterday he voted against offence provisions that go to visa conditions that are proposed to keep people safe. He also voted against arrangements to improve electronic monitoring. He, like the Leader of the Opposition, likes to talk tough and he likes to talk about strength, but his voting record is exactly the opposite. Tough talk does not keep communities safe. Strong laws do. Why won't they vote for them?