Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

The Customs Legislation Amendment (Name Change) Bill 2009 is probably the silliest bill I have seen come into this House in my very short time here, but it is one that really provides a narrative on this government. We have seen a lot of bad bills come into this place, and those on this side of the House have taken the opportunity to vote against bad bills. But the reason I think that this is a silly bill is that it does nothing of substance other than to change a name.

We have seen from the government that they are great at announcements, they are great at getting the packaging right but, when it comes to the substance, you open the box and there is nothing there. That is what this bill is: you open it up and there is nothing there. Maybe the wordsmiths who crafted the bill might want to call it the ‘Customs Spin Bill 2009’. I do not recall, when the previous government decided to do actual things on border protection, that John Howard as Prime Minister felt the need to go around changing names to prove his point. John Howard and his government did everything that was necessary to ensure that Australia’s borders were protected. As a result, our borders were protected. It was never part of his plan or strategy to change the name of a government agency which would have the people smugglers cowering in their pathetic little dens and would somehow be the thing that would bring about the great turnaround in protecting our borders.

This bill is about the shopfront but it does nothing about the shop. The bill is an empty gesture. It is more poll-driven Ruddspeak designed to kick up dust on an issue without actually doing something. Their idea is that if they change the name of an agency it will send a message out there that this is somehow a priority of the government. You need to do more than change the name on the letterhead to establish credentials to do what is necessary to protect Australia’s borders. The government is great at announcing but woeful at delivering.

This reminds me again of the process, in portfolio areas where I have some responsibility, where the government back in November brought 500 mayors together and said, ‘Now means now. The money is ready to go now and it is all immediate.’ The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has been running around the country making announcements about new funding and approvals, yet we found out in estimates hearings that only one funding agreement had actually been signed. I have letters and emails coming to my office asking, ‘Where’s the money?’ This is a government that likes to announce things but cannot actually follow through on the delivery. Building 20,000 new public housing dwellings may be, from a social policy perspective, very worthy of doing over a long period of time, if the country can afford it. But if you cannot afford it and you cannot deliver it, it hardly delivers an effective stimulus.

Just today we had the announcement of some new housing commencement data which showed that over the last two years some 7,000 or so public housing dwellings were completed. The government think that they can build 20,000 dwellings in less than that period of time, through state agencies. My point is simply that this government like to make announcements, like to make cosmetic changes to get their messages out there, but if you are serious about border protection you need to do more than change the letterhead.

The bill amends the Customs Administration Act 1985 to change the name of the Australian Customs Service to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. As a consequence, we have in this bill amendments to a further 24 Commonwealth acts to replace references to the Australian Customs Service. Honestly, big deal. What the Australian people are looking for in border protection is actual action. The bill simply proposes a change of name. It does not make any substantial policy shift to combat people-smuggling as outlined by the Prime Minister in his national security statement in December last year.

The positive steps taken by the previous coalition government under John Howard to secure Australia’s borders meant the following. They increased the funding for the Customs Service by $640 million between 1996 and 2007, an increase of 180 per cent or just over 100 per cent in real terms. The increased budget allowed Customs to significantly expand its operations in the detection and seizure of illicit drugs being imported into Australia. The additional funding provided by the Howard government allowed Customs to increase its staff numbers and introduce new technology. This sped up the processing of arriving international air passengers to about 95 per cent through the barrier within 30 minutes of arrival. Resources were provided for the deployment of new drug detection dog teams in Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Melbourne and Perth. The decision maintained Australia’s reputation as a world leader in best practice for detector dog breeding, development, training and deployment. In 2007 there were 59 Customs dog detector teams maintained nationwide. Funding of $23 million was provided to enhance Customs’ ability to identify international travellers who may be of interest. This included a new passenger evaluation system to improve data sharing between agencies. Customs liaison offices were established in a number of overseas cities, including Beijing and Jakarta, to enable Customs to engage directly with key overseas counterparts on issues of mutual interest, including border security, drugs and counterterrorism.

The Howard government established the Border Protection Command in 2004 to strengthen Australia’s Civil Maritime Surveillance and Response Program. The Border Protection Command identifies and manages threats and shares information. It is legislated to allow offshore processing of illegal arrivals, with the establishment of processing centres on Nauru. Australia has also pursued an excellent relationship with our neighbours, particularly Indonesia, to improve the relations between Canberra and Jakarta to ensure greater cooperation and shared intelligence. As a government we introduced legislation to exclude from Australia’s asylum processes those who have access to effective protection elsewhere. We maintained a commitment to the principle of mandatory detention for all persons without authority to be in Australia as a central part of maintaining the integrity of the migration program. We excised from Australia’s migration zone those Australian territories that were magnets for people smugglers. By doing these things, the government of John Howard was able to get results on border protection. We made serious changes and took serious actions to protect our borders—not name changes and Ruddspeak.

Between 1999 and 2001 around 12,000 people arrived illegally in Australia by boat. After the changes to Australia’s migration laws introduced by the Howard government, only 56 people arrived in that same manner between 2005 and 2006. Since the election of the Rudd Labor government we have seen a change to these measures on their watch that cannot be papered over by the spin bill that we have before us, which merely seeks to change names to create an impression. That is what this government likes to do. They like to create impressions in the minds of Australians. But those impressions do not always match their intent, their actions and their follow-through. My warning to Australians is this: do not be fooled by a simple change of language. Go to the record to see which side of this House has a true commitment to border protection backed up by actions over a long period of time that delivered real results.

The Rudd government has announced a softening of border protection measures. Unauthorised arrivals will only be held in detention until health, security and identity checks have been completed. Beyond this, mandatory detention will continue to apply only to those people presenting an unacceptable risk to the community and to unlawful noncitizens who have repeatedly refused to comply with visa regulations. Another example of Labor’s softening of border protection includes the abolition of the temporary protection visa program and its replacement with permanent visas. These sorts of changes really do start to give a nod and a wink to those who would seek to engage in the despicable act of people-smuggling.

As a new member of parliament, I took it upon myself to go and visit the Villawood detention centre early in my time as a member of this place. The thing I was struck by was how very few people were actually in that detention centre. That should be our goal. We should not have these places full. We should not be in a situation where we have to do this. The way to do that was demonstrated by the Howard government in having strong, tough border protection laws. That is how these places emptied out. That is how we got to a position where there were fewer and fewer boat arrivals. I am happy to stand here in this place and identify myself totally with the policies of the Howard government on border protection, because they worked. That is why I am happy to do it—because they worked. I am as opposed to people-smuggling as anyone else in this House. But the best way to ensure that these detention centres are not full and the best way to ensure that children are not on boats going across the strait is to ensure that there is a massive deterrent for them to engage in this activity. That is the way to stop them. That is the humane approach. We do not want those boats leaving those shores. We do not want them coming across in a position of danger where people’s lives are being put at risk. To achieve that you have got to have tough border protection. That is what the Howard government did.

When in opposition, those opposite wanted to feign that they had some sort of similarity to the Howard government on these things. They would not come out before the election and beat their chests on this issue and talk with the Australian people about the changes they have now made. You did not hear the Prime Minister being honest with the people by saying that he was going to change temporary protection visas and detention laws. No, he did not have the courage to put that to the Australian people. He sat here in this place today and had the gall to tell people he was keeping promises. That was one promise he never made to the Australian people; it was something he was happy to do quietly after he got into government—not unlike his changes on the issues of aid and abortion. He was quite happy to go out there and send a message to the Christian community—

See this speech in context