Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I rise in the House today, I want to say at the outset that I have not crossed the floor in relation to any item of legislation since I was elected as a member of this place. However, that is not to say that, were circumstances to occur in which I felt so strongly opposed to the position taken by the government of the day or by the opposition—if I happened to be part of an opposition—I would not take the very strong stand of crossing the floor to publicly witness the values and principles that I strongly support.

I will not be crossing the floor on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, for a good reason—that is, I support it totally. But I would like to make a plea to those colleagues in the government parties who are considering taking that very strong course of action. Having said that, I very much respect the decision-making processes that each of them will come to and I also respect the decision that they will make. But, in relation to this bill, I would ask them—particularly any senators who might be looking at crossing the floor—to recognise that the government collectively has made a decision and that, having made that decision, it ought to have the right, as it is the elected government of Australia, to have that decision implemented into legislation.

If one were to take on board the comments made by various honourable members opposite, one would think that this is an uncaring government, entirely disrespectful of our international obligations and entirely disregarding of the rights of refugees and those people who seek a better life in this country. When one looks at the facts, one appreciates that that is in fact a long way from the truth.

I am particularly proud to be associated with a government that is committed to making this nation the most comfortable place to live for all of our citizens and residents. We are a relatively large country by area, with a relatively small population. We have finite funding resources that must be divided sensibly to meet as many needs as possible of as many groups in the Australian community as possible. This is not an easy job for the government. It is a challenging job, it is an interesting job and it is certainly a responsibility that the government does not take lightly. With that comes the responsibility to manage immigration in a manner that reflects the reality that Australia is a multicultural nation and a democracy that believes in fair treatment for all. We are also, however, a sovereign nation with specific legislation to determine who is allowed to come into our country, who goes and who stays.

The speeches made by opposition members indicate how out of touch with community sentiment the current Labor opposition is. I would challenge members of the opposition to walk down the main street of any city, town or suburb in Australia and talk to constituents about how they feel on this important issue. I have done exactly that. On the Sunshine Coast I have walked down the street, spoken to residents and taken soundings on what local community people are saying. I would like to take this opportunity to advise the House that people on the Sunshine Coast and, in my view, in other parts of the country say very strongly that they recognise Australia’s excellent reputation as a country which does accept a high proportion of genuine refugees, but equally they do not want Australia to be a soft touch. They want in place very strong laws that respect the integrity of Australia’s migration system.

The reason we do not have the problems that certain other countries have is that we have sent a very strong message to the world that Australia has laws which must be respected by those who seek to join our Australian society. The honourable member for Calwell, in her speech, suggested that we ought to have almost open slather, that we ought to accept anybody who wants to come to Australia. Clearly that is not economically or socially desirable. A community can only absorb a certain level of migration, and I think that is recognised on both sides of the House. The way to guarantee that our migration system has integrity is to have rules and to have those rules strongly enforced. The member for Calwell should appreciate that only Australian citizens have the unrestricted right to travel freely to and from Australia and to remain in the country and that all other people, with a small number of exceptions, must have the authority, in the form of a visa, to travel to, enter or stay in this nation.

We are proud to be a nation that respects human life and that respects all those of various cultural backgrounds. The member for Calwell, in her speech, spoke about the UNHCR and their view of this legislation. I am supremely unconcerned by any partisan comment made by a spokesperson for the UNHCR. Further, if you talk to the ordinary, average Australian who goes about his or her life working hard to make a future for his or her family, you will find that that ordinary, decent Australian will tell the UNHCR: ‘Butt out. We are not remotely interested in the way that you endeavour to dictate to the sovereign parliament of this country or, indeed, to the government of this country on what ought to be the laws which allow people to enter or not enter Australia.’

Australia’s processing of unauthorised arrivals is of the highest integrity. The process is modelled closely on the process used by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is amazing that the spokesperson for the UNHCR criticises Australia, when Australia as a democratic Western country, respectful of human rights, dots our i’s and crosses our t’s and, along with Canada and the United States of America, is consistently ranked in the top three nations for offering refugee resettlement. In fact, as I go around my electorate I am told over and over again that Australia is excessively generous, that we ought not to accept the proportion of refugees that we do in Australia. Honourable members would be interested to know that our refugee program costs $2,000 million every four years. That is a cost borne by the Australian taxpayer.

I am one of those who believe that we as a nation do have to accept a proportion of refugees, and I think it is always necessary in such situations to get the balance right. Even though the government is probably leading public opinion in this area by accepting more refugees than the community at large would want, I think it is the right thing to do. We work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to determine the priority for those seeking resettlement. The opposition appear to be supporting those people who want to jump the queue. They seem to think that somehow, if a boat is able to arrive on mainland Australia, those people ought to have rights above and beyond those people who are intercepted before they reach the mainland of Australia.

See this speech in context