Immigration Minister Andrew Giles is once again facing calls to be removed from government from members of the opposition, amid an ongoing concern around criminal migrants within Australia.
Australian Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has echoed his own previous questions around whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will sack Mr. Giles after the immigration minister incorrectly stated that criminal migrants were being supervised by police drones.
In November last year, the Australian High Court ruled the case of an indefinitely detained Rohingya man known as NZYQ was unlawful, which led to the government releasing 151 people from indefinite detention.
Concerns have been raised around the safety of Australians in the wake of the ruling.
This week, Mr. Giles was questioned on why freed immigration detainees accused of serious crimes were not required to wear monitors.
In a Sky News interview, Mr. Giles stated police were “using drones to keep track of these people” with a quarter of a billion dollars dedicated by the government to enable surveillance of offenders.
“We know where they are,” he said, before saying the law did not allow for the placement of individual monitors on the offenders.
Australian Liberal Senator James Paterson later questioned the Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner Ian McCartney in Parliament, asking him if police were using secret drones to watch over criminals.
He was told “the answer is no.”
Later, Mr. Giles spoke in parliament, addressing the confusion and pinning blame on miscommunication from his department.
“I did state that Operation AEGIS was using drones, I relied on information provided by my department at the time which has since been clarified,” he said.
Mr. Dutton took to social media condemning the confusion.
“How many more mistakes does Anthony Albanese’s hapless immigration minister need to make before the prime minister finally decides to sack him?” the opposition leader wrote on social media.
The controversial ruling by Mr. Giles in January last year gave the Australian Appeals Tribunal (AAT) the directive to prioritise convicted criminals’ ties to Australia when determining whether to allow successful appeals of visa cancellations.
Mr. Albanese stated in Parliament question time on May 29 that he would revise the Direction 99 ruling which had allowed violent criminals to remain in Australia after their cancelled visas were reinstated.
During the confusion with Direction 99, the Labor government levelled blame for violent offenders remaining in Australia at the AAT.
Mr. Paterson said in a statement on his social media that the week’s Senate Estimates had revealed a number of concerning issues around the government’s immigration policies.
Namely, an admission on the failure of Direction 99 and the aftermath of the NZYQ case.
“We’ve learned that two murderers and 26 sex offenders are now in the community without any monitoring at all,” he said.
Mr. Giles’ office was contacted for comment.
