Mr GILES (Scullin—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (15:48): This is an MPI that reveals quite a lot about the opposition and its leader—much more about those than anything else. It really does speak to the determination of someone who in more than two decades in public life has never made a positive contribution, whose inclination at every turn is to divide, whose inclination— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Just stop for a moment, Minister. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, and I assured that. I don't want— Mr Taylor interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry? Member for Hume, would you like to have some contribution to this debate? Right. I'm just asking for a little bit of respect either side here. Minister, you have the call. Mr GILES: As I was saying, the disposition of the Leader of the Opposition is always to divide. He is addicted to opposition, and he has never proved himself to be a leader, and you see this throughout his conduct over the last couple of weeks. All of us in public life face choices, and one of the key choices when challenges emerge is whether you take responsibility or look for someone to blame. I can assure you that the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit alongside him always look for someone to blame, and we've seen that through the extraordinary anger. Ms Bell: Projection 101—a classic Labor tactic. Mr GILES: There's an interjection about projection. I think in question time this week we saw a lot of projection, as we do. The Leader of the Opposition spends a lot of time talking about weakness and toughness. He loves describing himself as tough. But what we've seen throughout his time in public life is that his rhetoric is completely undermined by his actions and, indeed, by his inactions too. His record as a minister over the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government really bears this out. In question time this week we saw the Deputy Prime Minister eviscerate his record in defence, which is quite something given the number of defence ministers under that former government. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, if you're going to leave the chamber, please do so quietly, or I'll be having you back in here to apologise. Mr GILES: He is someone who was regarded by stakeholders as Australia's worst health minister. But it's his record in immigration and in home affairs—which is his creature, really—that really is the most important and most concerning thing—along with, it has to be said, his disposition. Earlier, I referred in question time to comments of the former attorney-general former senator Brandis. He had more to say in his valedictory, which is worth repeating. He talked about his concern about powerful right-wing elements who've abandoned both liberalism and conservatism, and he touched particularly on conservatism's respect for institutions and about abandoning that 'in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism'. Does that sound familiar, anyone—a belligerent, intolerable populism? If anything sums up the attitude of this Leader of the Opposition, it is that, particularly through this year, with his relentless campaign, which I though was about defending the sacrosanct nature of the Australian Constitution when it came to that generous offer from First Nations people. But, as soon as it became convenient, he was prepared to trash the Constitution and, frankly, as we've seen in recent days, to trash the separation of powers and trash any sense of regard for the rule of law. Senator Brandis, as he then was, went on: I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly … Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage. He was right then, and recent weeks have proven him to be even more right with the passage of time. It is worth repeating that every member of this place and every member of the other place is concerned for the safety of the community. It is worth repeating. My focus as minister for immigration, through this time and throughout the time that I've been privileged to hold this office, has been resolutely on that. I noted that in the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition he didn't particularly focus on some rather glaring omissions when it came to his record, including in respect of the NZYQ matter. But it begins before that, because of course it was he more than anyone else who oversaw a broken migration system in this country—an absolutely trashed migration system. When we came into government, we inherited a mess, and perhaps one of the most visible symbols of that mess was the million visas waiting to be processed. It went so much deeper than that. One of the key failings of the former minister, now Leader of the Opposition, the man who always talks tough but in whom, when you scratch the surface, weakness appears almost immediately and marks him indelibly— Mr Chester: Talk about your own legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just warned the House about interjections, Member for Gippsland. You weren't in the chamber, but I'm giving you the courtesy of warning you now. Mr GILES: He cut compliance functions in immigration in half. And what happened because of that? Well, Christine Nixon had a bit to say: rampant sexual exploitation, organised crime running rampant and our protection system absolutely trashed. These are scars which persist, and we have taken responsibility for fixing the problem. We continue to do that, because every decision we make is with the safety and the values of the Australian community in mind. It was really disappointing that the Leader of the National Party, someone for whom I have some regard, asked a question which spoke about the commitment we have made to Border Force, the Federal Police and the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions in utterly inappropriate terms. Those investments are absolutely critical to keeping communities safe. Something that's also critical is for parliamentarians and anyone who holds public office to speak the truth, to not mischaracterise facts—particularly wilfully. The commentary on the High Court decision is, frankly, absolutely unworthy of any member of this place. Members should reflect on their wider responsibilities as lawmakers, particularly those who have held significant executive responsibilities previously. It is worth repeating a couple of points in respect of this story. It is the case that the Commonwealth vigorously defended the proceeding. We did so, and we also sought to maintain the detention of the individual in question—unlike, it has to be said, certain former ministers. Before the decision we took some steps to let state and territory law enforcement officials know that there could be an adverse decision and to prepare for that. We also undertook a range of steps ourselves. Immediately after the decision we set up Operation AEGIS to coordinate the work of the ABF, the Australian Federal Police and those state and territory agencies. We got to work, despite what they said otherwise, immediately on exploring what regulatory and legislative options would be open to us, having regard to the limited nature of the information we had when we only had the order, not the reasons for the decision. Within eight days we passed a bill through this parliament—strong new laws. I acknowledge the cooperation of the opposition in securing the passage of those laws. When we looked at those laws, which were moved through quickly and contained significant amendments, we sought to boost the sanctions available in them and to improve the laws otherwise, as any reasonable government would. Indeed, as I indicated on the morning those laws became operative, we will continue to review them to ensure community safety is maximised. We introduced new laws and briefed the opposition on them. For some reason, despite the fact they created offence provisions in respect of the very amendments they put forward as visa conditions, they voted against them not once but twice. Mr Rae: That's strange! Mr GILES: I think someone should have explained that to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party; that would have assisted her and perhaps also assisted the House. We now have reasons, and we're working through those reasons, as my friend the Minister for Home Affairs said in anticipation of the reasons being delivered, with a particular view to looking to see how we can design a preventative detention mechanism—and a mechanism that's lawful, because one thing we also know about the Leader of the Opposition is he tends to rush to judgement and he tends to get things wrong. As I've had the opportunity to say more often than I would have liked, tough talk doesn't keep people safe; tough laws do—and that means constitutionally sound laws. He has got a track record of failing there, consistently. We are determined to get it right because community safety must be our No. 1 priority. This should be a shared priority of members across this chamber and indeed in the other place. I say to members opposite and their colleagues in the Senate: we have an opportunity to come together to put in place a legal framework that is proportionate, is defensible and will help keep Australians safe. The question for them is: do they want to continue to seek to divide or do they want to make a positive contribution?