80 Asylum Seekers Released From Immigration Detention Into Australian Community

Activists in support of the refugees gather outside Park Hotel in Melbourne, Australia on Jan. 6, 2022. Diego Fedele/Getty Images

Eighty people with potential criminal convictions have been released immediately from immigration detention following a recent High Court ruling.

Coalition Senator James Paterson has raised concerns, highlighting that “we don’t know who they are,” after Immigration Minister Andrew Giles confirmed the release of the asylum seekers.

On Nov. 8, the High Court found that indefinite immigration detention was unlawful, overturning a 20-year precedent.

Following this decision, Mr. Giles confirmed 80 people who are on “appropriate” visa conditions have been released.

“That number is 80, all of whom are on appropriate visa conditions. And that’s obviously one of the bases upon which we assure community safety. Those visa conditions include regular reporting,” Mr. Giles said during an interview on ABC radio.

“Depending on the nature of the offending, depending on the circumstances of the individual, there will be appropriate responses under state and federal regimes.”

‘We Don’t Know What Crimes They Have Committed’: Paterson

But Senator Paterson, the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, raised concerns about the release during a doorstop at Parliament House on Monday.

Mr. Paterson noted the High Court has not yet published the reasons for the decision on Nov. 8. Further, he highlighted some of the crimes involve are serious, violent or sexual.

“We don’t know where they are. We don’t know what crimes they have committed. And I have no confidence that the government is taking all the steps necessary to protect Australians from the risks that these people pose to us,” Mr. Paterson said.

“Because we do know some of them have committed serious, violent, and sexual crimes and others have violated the character provisions of the Migration Act.”

He noted it was concerning that people, who other countries in the world have been unwilling to take, are being released onto the streets in Australia.

Mr. Paterson suggested the government should be looking at the terrorism framework, including control orders, detention orders, and extended supervision orders, as an option to protect the community.

“That’s just one option. There are many others available to the government, but it doesn’t seem like they were prepared,” he said.

A general view of the High Court of Australia in Canberra, Australia, on Nov. 5, 2020. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

What Did the High Court Rule?

In the case of NZYQ vs the Minister for Immigration, Chief Justice Stephen Gageler pronounced an order of the court with which the majority agreed.

The order declared that—due to the absence of any real prospect that the plaintiff will be removed from Australia in the foreseeable future, a situation that has and will continue to persist—the plaintiff’s detention and continued detention were both unlawful.

NZYQ was the pseudonym given to a stateless Rohingya man who was held in detention because no other country that the government approached was willing resettle him, as he had been convicted of a child sex offence.

Lawyers for NZYQ revealed the Australian government had tried to deport him to six countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada.