Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. We all know that at the last election this government went to the people saying that we would work hard to make sure that we kept our border secure and to make sure that we kept our country safe. We have done that over a number of years. We've now been able to introduce 17 tranches of national security legislation designed to keep Australians safe.

As I said yesterday—and I'll repeat it again today—no Australian should be complacent about the threat to us as a Western democracy. We've seen terrible, horrific attacks where people have lost their lives in all parts of the world, where extremists have undertaken reprehensible actions that have resulted in a loss of life. We have been in a position where we have had a debate, as people will be aware, around temporary exclusion orders, which allows the minister of the day to temporarily exclude for a period of up to two years an Australian citizen who is suspected of fighting for ISIL or being involved in a terrorism cause. We can manage their return back to our country in that arrangement.

We have sought the support of Labor over a period of time for this important bill. The Labor Party has been in favour of it. They've been against it. They've been in between. The fact is that last night, when this bill was debated in the chamber, the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, argued that the bill was unconstitutional. He moved 41 amendments. In the end, when he realised we had the votes in the Senate to pass this bill, what did he do? He folded and voted for the bill—a bill that he said was fundamentally flawed, unconstitutional and required 41 amendments. He didn't get up one amendment. The bill is not in an amended form.

How can people look to the Labor Party and have any idea of what they stand for? Earlier this week, we saw the Labor Party in favour of tax cuts and against tax cuts and eventually vote for tax cuts only when they realised that we had the support of those in the other place. They've done the same on drought assistance. They are for it. They are against it. They're in between. Who knows where this Leader of the Opposition stands? Who knows what he stands for? But we do know he's not consistent when it comes to the most important test of any leader in this place: whether they have a consistent approach to national security. This Leader of the Opposition is at least as weak as any of his predecessors in this place in recent history, and he's demonstrated that in the last 24 hours. You cannot have a position where you are for, against and in between it and then ultimately fold. People don't cop that. People have found you out. (Time expired)

See this speech in context