Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is good to have the opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Charging for a Migration Outcome) Bill. The bill goes to a lot of matters, and it particularly goes to the integrity of both our immigration system and our national security. Everyone understands that we must set the rules that determine who is allowed into this country. We must know who arrives, and there cannot be any form of compromise. This is the consistent message that the Australian people have had from us and that they continue to get from us under the leadership of Prime Minister Turnbull. I know that some people hoped that the Prime Minister was going to change the working policies of this government, but that was never going to happen. The vast majority of the people support exactly what we are doing. The Australian people know that the Australian borders and the integrity of our immigration system are absolutely safe with us. Obviously it is true that not everyone agrees with our policy. Certainly the Greens, by way of example, do not agree with the policy that we have in place. There are others like GetUp! and their supporters that also do not agree with us. However, the 'open the borders and let everyone come by boat' crowd is extremely small in this country. They are of course deluded that they are in the majority, probably also thinking that a Q&A audience is broadly representative of Australia's mainstream population. Obviously that is not true.

Our policy has delivered integrity for the immigration system, and it is comprised of many aspects. Turnbacks, off-shore processing and the arrangements under which no-one who arrived by boat since our government commenced has been allowed to stay are key elements of our working policy. We have set the rules and through our rock solid consistency those that think about coming by boat understand the way this government operates. Because almost no-one tries anymore, our humanitarian intake is now just from offshore. That also has resulted in the humanitarian dividend of being able to accept 12,000 of those in the worst circumstances from Syria, the persecuted minorities including Christians. We should be in no doubt about this fact. When we look at our televisions and we see the tragedy of Syria and the persecution of defenceless people by a brutal, inhuman and evil organisation, it is then that we need the flexibility to act like we have—but that is not possible if we do not have control over our immigration system.

I know that in the future there will be suggestions that our opponents can maintain that integrity and that the boats will not come again, but that is as untrue now as it was in 2007. Nothing is more certain than the fact that any thought of a return to government by our opponents will see the return of the boats with them. As the sign on the door of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, 'Welcome to Australia for those who've come across the seas.' No-one doubts that the deputy opposition leader and so many others on the other side have a clearly different view from us and the return of the boats will follow any future return of the Labor Party to government.

This bill is about ensuring each aspect of our policy works. It is about ensuring that if things do not work out the way they should when we remove unlawful noncitizens that there are no gaps in the process or arrangements that could result in that unlawful noncitizen being able to stay after having taken advantage of the circumstances. To that end, this bill makes a number of unrelated amendments to the Migration Act 1958 and the Maritime Powers Act 2013. Overall, it helps to advance the intent of previous legislation to strengthen our borders and to maintain the integrity of the migration program.

The amendments to this bill certainly make sense. When unlawful noncitizens are in the process of being removed from Australia and something goes wrong, such as a country of transit refuses entry, we need to have the ability to bring the unlawful citizen back without a visa. Also, of course, such an eventuality should not be taken as a reset of the situation that the person was in before the removal began. It is, therefore, an amendment where such a person will be considered before the law to have never left the migration zone and the same prohibitions will continue to apply for visa applications. This will ensure that, just because they are back, it will not mean that they can apply to stay, so that there is no change to what it was like before the removal process was initiated.

The next matter I would like to raise relates to character, to the cancellation of general visas, and to the legal framework surrounding those provisions being strengthened via the amendments in this bill. This is particularly relevant with the recent events on Christmas Island. Given the success the government has had in reducing illegal maritime arrivals, the balance of those on Christmas Island has shifted to those being deported on character grounds. The violence perpetrated by some of the 200-plus persons detained there, led by those who have violent criminal backgrounds, just bears out the importance of having the ability to remove those whose actions and records demonstrate poor character. These people do pose a risk to the Australian community and should be liable for a visa refusal or cancellation. I very much endorse the introduction of the mandatory cancellation of visas for noncitizens in prisons who do not pass the character test so that those who pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community can be detained until the risk they pose has actually been assessed and their immigration status has been determined.

Certainly it is the case that the core issues addressed by these amendments will also ensure that confidential criminal intelligence that is at the heart of the decision and is the justification for invoking certain character provisions can be safeguarded. There will also be a new power regarding removal to ensure that a noncitizen whose visa has been mandatorily cancelled will be able to be removed from Australia at the end of the process. Also, consistent with the point I made before, the amendments will actually align the definition of 'character concern' with the character test. This will make sure that those with a criminal history can be properly identified by officers and the criminal background of those who come to note because of concerns about their character will be identified.

The amendments contained in this bill also withdraw the opportunity to make an additional protection visa application if they have already had an application made on their behalf and it has been refused. So this will eliminate an applicant trying to circumvent the original failure by using different grounds for the subsequent attempt for the protection visa. What this is ultimately about is preventing attempts to stop the detainee's removal by making further applications. I know this will irritate some people, but the reality is that the vast majority of the Australian people want the integrity in the immigration system that this government has achieved and they want it to be absolutely maintained.

It is not my intention to go through the amendments and quote sections and subsections. It is true that much of this bill is somewhat technical in nature but it is important that the legal framework of the Migration Act is strengthened. With that strengthening comes the maintenance of the integrity of the immigration system and the fundamental basis of our approach—that is, that our system must be fair and people must abide by that system. That said, people should not be able to play the system, they should not be able to work the system and, above all, they should not be able to take advantage of the Australian people and the generous nature of our support.

The approach of this government is to be fair and generous, but that should apply to legitimate people with the most need. As I have said before in many other debates, although this bill is not strictly about illegal maritime arrivals, the humanitarian intake should be absolutely targeted toward those in the greatest need. The priority of those to be taken must be based upon need and not upon cash. Therefore the ability to buy an airline ticket to Indonesia and then to pay the people smugglers to try to get to Australia is not the example that we should be supporting.

It is through this bill and the other related bills that we are making sure that the immigration system has the integrity it needs and through that integrity we can ensure our humanitarian intake remains a priority for those in the greatest need. There is no doubt that the humanitarian intake must focus on those in refugee camps and those being sheltered in the most difficult of circumstances. The priority must be the persecuted minorities from Syria and the Karen or Chin people from Burma or even the persecuted Vietnamese activists who have devoted their lives to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other freedoms that can see them face jail and persecution. We must take people from refugee camps and from places of shelter around conflict zones. This is the compassionate approach and this is the dividend that comes from stopping those who have come by boat, who have bypassed numerous countries thereby undermining their legitimacy and lowering the priority that we attach to their cases. That is the aim of our policy: need over cash. It is through this bill and previous bills and the actions of this government and the ADF that the right policy sees those in the most need receive the priority of our attention and receive the benefit of the support of this nation.

I endorse this bill and the policy of the Turnbull Government and I commend the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015 to the House.

See this speech in context