Mr MORRISON (3:32 PM) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MORRISON —Yes, in two instances.

The SPEAKER —Please proceed.

Mr MORRISON —In the first instance, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in a personal explanation he provided to the House yesterday misrepresented a statement I made in this House when he claimed that I said that offshore refugee and skill visa applications were not subject to judicial review. I said that I stood by my earlier comments that certain offshore applications would not be reviewable by the High Court rather than his broader claim of judicial review.

In the second instance, the minister argued in making his personal explanation on this matter that I had misrepresented the law. Again, I have been misrepresented in his claim that I misrepresented the law when he argued that any decision to refuse a visa application is subject to review by the High Court. I did not misrepresent the law. Contrary to the minister’s understanding, the remedies mentioned in section 75 of the Constitution to the High Court for appeal do not apply to the cases I referred to, in that there is no obligation on the government to exercise a power to grant or consider granting a visa. I refer the House to Leach v the Queen (2007) 230 CLR 1 for support.

Similarly, the High Court found that there is no duty to exercise power under the act, and where the act is being administered in accordance with that regime, no rights or interests are created that would vest the court with jurisdiction.

The SPEAKER —Order! The member has now outlined where he was misrepresented.