Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I would recommend to the member for Maribyrnong that he read the articles from the former member for Werriwa in the Financial Review on Fridays because he will find them very illuminating about what the former member thinks of this Labor budget. I do not think he agrees with the member for Maribyrnong. I am not sure whether, when the former member for Werriwa was leader of the Labor Party and the member for Maribyrnong was leader of his union, they were close friends. The former member has some quite interesting things to say about the Labor Party’s budget. It would be good reading for the member for Maribyrnong and even for the member for Reid, who was very close to the former member for Werriwa for a very long time.

As well as being the member for Sturt, I am fortunate to be the shadow minister for justice and border protection and it is in that role that I intend to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009, the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009, the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2007-2008 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2007-2008 to elucidate to the House the failings of this government with respect to the Australian Federal Police and Customs in particular. I am also the assisting shadow minister for immigration so, if I have time in the appropriations debate, I intend to also speak about some of the failings of this government on immigration, particularly in relation to my great state of South Australia.

As a government, our record on border protection and national security is second to none. I think that most of the Australian public would agree, even if they did not agree with all of the aspects of the former government’s policies, that one thing that was overwhelmingly supported was our record on border protection and national security. Threats to our security are becoming increasingly complex and unpredictable. A government’s first responsibility must always be to protect the freedom and way of life that we treasure. In its 11 years the Howard government recognised the importance of border protection and national security. Between its election in March 1996 and its last budget in 2007, the coalition increased funding to all of our security agencies. Customs funding was increased from $357 million to $1,000 million, Australian Federal Police funding was increased from $205 million to $976 million, ASIO funding was increased from $52 million to $291 million, and AFP staff were increased from 2,722 as at June 1996 to an incredible 6,011 in June 2007. Over 11 years the previous government gave our border protection and national security agencies real teeth: it increased regional and global cooperation in law enforcement activities and legal assistance to boost the fight against terrorism and transnational crime; it delivered substantial enhancements of aviation and maritime security; it delivered a ‘tough on drugs’ approach that has increased seizures and reduced drug use; and it tackled illegal immigration both on our borders and at the source. By comparison, the new Labor government has shown itself to be weak and uninterested in border protection and national security.

I turn to some of the aspects of this budget that expose the Labor government for their weakness with border protection and national security. The first is their confidence trick in relation to the ‘more cops on the beat’ announcement in the budget and before the election. The delivery of more sworn Federal Police officers by this government has been revealed by the budget papers as a three-year trickle followed by a fourth-year tsunami that may never come. The 2008-09 budget reveals that the vast bulk of Labor’s 500 sworn Federal Police officers will not come to be employed until after the next federal election. The budget shows that only $36.7 million or 19 per cent of funding for this initiative will be spent before the next election, due in 2010. The government is clearly so embarrassed about this funding shortfall that they have refused to include any detail on how many extra sworn officers will be employed each year. Our calculations suggest that in the coming year there will be 31 new sworn officers, followed by 30 officers in 2009-10 and 39 officers in 2010-11. This means that, far from the 500 new officers trumpeted by Labor’s election promise, only 99 officers will be delivered before the next election, then in 2011-12 another 213 officers will become active, followed by the final 188 in 2012-13.

The stated intention of this ALP promise was to bolster the Australian Federal Police numbers on the streets. The budget has revealed that their promise was utterly hollow. We need a strong Federal Police force to protect Australia from transnational crime, overseas and onshore terrorist operations, people-smuggling and human slave-trading operations, child pornography rings and the scourge of ice, Afghan brown heroin and other drugs, and we need them for all of the other important work that they do. The public expected to see Labor’s AFP officers on the streets on 1 January 2008. Instead we will see most of them after 2011. Labor’s promise was all spin and no substance.

The budget also slashed border protection funding. The Australian Customs Service have suffered a substantial budget cut, exposing Labor’s old-fashioned weakness in the area of border protection and national security. Australian Customs have been slashed by $51.5 million in real terms, which amounts to a 3.4 per cent cut to the Customs budget. Australian Customs have more demands placed on them than ever before in protecting Australia’s borders from dangerous illicit drugs, disease and the terrorist threat, amongst other things. With reports indicating increases in illegal tobacco or chop-chop and Afghan brown heroin on the streets of Australian cities, this is not the time to be cutting the Customs budget. Cuts to Australian Customs, who are the front line in Australia’s border protection security, would have been unthinkable for any sensible government. The ALP has played to form and has started undoing the strong support that our national security agencies enjoyed under the coalition government. Underfunded agencies will be unable to deliver strong border protection which places Australia’s interests and Australian lives at risk.

Not content with cuts to Customs, the new Labor government has slugged working families with a travel tax grab. Australian working families looking to take a break or to have a holiday are going to be slugged as of 1 July 2008 with a new tax, courtesy of the Rudd government’s first budget. The 2008-09 budget has revealed an increase in the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47, a 24 per cent increase that will force up the price of airline tickets for Australian holiday-makers as well as overseas tourists. This is another inflationary tax hike to add to the growing pile, with taxes on premixed drinks and luxury cars announced prebudget.

The government have been especially tricky in relation to this measure. They claim in their promotional material that this tax, which will raise $459.3 million over the next four years, is necessary to offset the cost of a range of aviation security initiatives and the cost of processing international passengers at international airports. If this were true, we would see that money being put back into Customs. The fact is, as I have already said, that Customs has seen its budget slashed this year by $51.5 million in real terms. This is really a raw deal for Customs. Next year alone they will collect $106.3 million from this tax on the public, only to see it funnelled into Wayne Swan’s general revenue, as they continue having to protect Australia’s borders with reduced funds. This revenue will not be used to protect Australian travellers; this is just another ALP tax hike.

The Australian Federal Police task force charged with tracking and catching online child predators and paedophiles has been cut in Labor’s first budget. Labor has got this completely wrong. One of the greatest fears a parent has is that their child will be preyed upon in an internet chat room or harassed online. The Protecting Australian Families Online package gave parents some peace of mind, knowing that the Australian Federal Police were actively tracking child predators and paedophiles. Labor have replaced it with their cyber safety plan, which removes $37.2 million over five years from the overall package. Disturbingly, they have cut $2.8 million over four years from the AFP’s role. Under Labor’s plan, the AFP is left with fewer resources to tackle these insidious predators.

Critically, our capacity to work with international agencies through the online child-exploitation task force has been reduced. The internet operates globally, and effectively tackling child exploitation requires international coordination. The challenges increase exponentially each year. This area needs increased resources, not fewer. When there is a $21.7 billion budget surplus, it beggars belief that Labor feels the need to make cuts in this important area.

This bizarre move highlights the Rudd government’s overall shift away from the coalition’s record of strong support for our national security agencies to the old fashioned Labor weakness in this vital area. The Rudd government is obsessed with tokenism and spin in matters of national security. The 2008 budget shows that the activities of Australia’s national anticorruption watchdog, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, are being crippled by underfunding. ACLEI was established by the Howard government to root out corruption in federal agencies. Despite the Rudd government’s promise to increase the size of the AFP, the government has failed to adequately fund ACLEI proportionately to that increase. Media reports indicate that a former head of ACLEI, John McMillan, said that to be effective the body needed a tenfold increase in investigative staff and substantial extra funding. The same report suggests that ACLEI will be unable to perform duties such as wire-tapping and covert operations essential to rooting out corruption.

While the Rudd government trumpets increases in the size of the Australian Federal Police—which are illusory in themselves as they are back-ended to 2011-12—they are failing to resource agencies who watch the watchers. This lack of proper resourcing for oversight agencies has real consequences. In this case, those consequences pertain to the credibility of our national security agencies.

So, in the area of Customs and the AFP, the government has unfortunately shown itself to be returning to old Labor. Reduced funding for Customs; no real and substantial increase of any kind in the AFP—there is a strong argument to suggest that there has been a cut to the AFP’s funding in real terms—a confidence trick of 500 new federal police officers, of which 401 will not be delivered until after the next federal election; a cut of $51.5 million to Customs when they are already stretched. And yesterday we saw a breach of security at Sydney airport where a man travelled through Customs without being stopped and then left and was only picked up as he was leaving Customs—a visitor to the airport. So Customs is stretched and yet their funding is being reduced. The public is being slugged with an increased passenger movement charge, none of which is going to Customs. The battle against child predation has been weakened by cuts to the AFP’s role, and ACLEI, which watches the watchers, is being underfunded.

Turning to my role as assisting shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, I would like to comment on some immigration issues, particularly in relation to South Australia. On 1 September last year the former federal government made some changes to immigration matters, and the state government has also made some changes in South Australia, and I would like to comment on those. Increasing the age limit for migrants in the skilled migration program from 45 to 50 in regional and low-population-growth areas would assist to attract many additional skilled migrants to South Australia. There are many people who wish to migrate to Australia who would make a valuable contribution to our society. However, many of them are unable to do so due to their age. People between the ages of 45 and 50 can still make a very valuable and significant contribution to the economy and labour market as they tend to be highly skilled and are able to assist businesses, Australian citizens and permanent residents via transferable skills and knowledge.

Australia’s two biggest competitors in the skilled migration front are Canada and New Zealand, both of which have an age limit for skilled migrants that exceeds ours. So I am suggesting that raising the upper age limit of the skilled migration program from 45 to 50 would be a benefit to South Australia, particularly if that was in regional and low-population-growth areas.

I would also like to see a reinstatement of the value of international students studying in South Australia. Prior to the 1 September changes to the general skilled migration program, there was a significant benefit to international students in studying in South Australia. This helped South Australia attract a significant increase in the number of international students studying at Adelaide. This system awarded applicants with five points for studying in a regional area. While these points are still available under the revised program, they do not have the same impact and attractiveness that they did previously. Under the old system, a 25-year-old international student studying a Bachelor of IT in Adelaide would have obtained the following points: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 20 for English for obtaining a minimum of six in each of the four components of the IELTS test, five for Australian qualification and five for regional study—120 in total. By comparison, the student studying in Sydney would have obtained the following points: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 20 for English for obtaining the same mark and five for Australian qualification—115 in total. Under the previous system, this student would need to study in South Australia in order to be eligible for the five points for regional study so they could meet the 120 points requirement.

One of the biggest changes to the new GSM program introduced in September 2007 is to English. Previously, a score of six in each of the four components of the test resulted in 20 points. Now, six equals 15 points and seven equals 25 points. Using the same scenario as before but substituting the applicant’s score from six to seven in each of the four components of the IELTS test, the results would be as follows in South Australia: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 25 for English, five for Australian qualification and five for regional study—125 in total. Using the same scenario for Sydney, the Sydney based student would obtain the following: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 25 for English and five for Australian qualification—120 in total. As you can see, if an international student chooses to study for a 60-point occupation in Sydney, Melbourne or Perth and obtains seven in each component of the IELTS test, they can satisfy the points requirement to be eligible for their permanent residency. Under the old system, this was not possible.

This change is detrimental to South Australia and South Australian educational institutions and threatens the ongoing viability of the international education market in my great state. In fact, under this system, when looking at the student studying in South Australia, they can satisfy the minimum points requirement of 120 without relying on the five points for regional study. In effect, regional study becomes irrelevant or obsolete.

There was a change the state government made, too, which has affected international students studying in South Australia. Under the pre-September 2007 GSM program, the state government would sponsor international students to the skilled independent regional visa upon completion of their studies in South Australia. Under the new program, the state government will not sponsor an international student unless they can demonstrate that they have at least 12 months work experience post qualification. This is to the disadvantage of South Australia. In contrast to this arrangement, the Western Australian government are quite happy to offer state sponsorship to their and our recent graduates. Under the new GSM program, any student who completes 12 months work experience in Australia is eligible for 10 points.

Another scenario is where a student studies IT in Adelaide but only scores six in each of the four components of the IELTS test and obtains 15 points for English. They would obtain the following points: 60 for skills, 30 for age, 15 for English, five for Australian qualification and five for regional study—115 in total. That is not enough to obtain residency, so this student would apply for a temporary graduate visa that allows them the opportunity to obtain 12 months work experience in order to be eligible for an additional 10 points. There is no requirement that a student must remain in South Australia to obtain these points. As a result of this, the IT graduate could then move interstate in order to find employment and be eligible for residency. The unfortunate reality is that it is extremely difficult for most international graduates to find work in South Australia. As such, we will lose a significant number of graduates.

Both of these scenarios open the doors for our recent graduates to depart South Australia. You can see that there are some changes that the new federal government could make, such as in the area of the age limit for skilled migrants. They could reinstate the value of international students studying in regional areas. The state government in South Australia could help by reinstating their previous attitude towards work experience.

I am pleased to see that the member for Maribyrnong has come back into the House to hear my speech. No doubt, when he went back to his office, his staff told him that he was missing an excellent speech and that he could learn something from it. I reiterate the call that I made to him when he was in the House at the beginning at my speech to go back and read his old friend Mark Latham’s columns in the Financial Review. He writes every Friday and is writing some excellent stuff about the failures of the current Labor government and particularly of the Prime Minister, some of which have been very memorable. (Time expired)

See this speech in context