Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I just rise to sum up the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 before it is put to the vote in this House. Firstly, I thank all the members for their contributions. To this bill: this is a really important one. I'm very passionate about the need for this, because it goes straight to the heart of protecting our staff in the detention network and innocent adults and children out in the community. I want to explain exactly how it does that, but, before doing so, I want to just briefly touch on two or three points which have come up repeatedly in the debate from those opposite and some of the crossbench.

The first point I want to make is about the make-up of those who are in the detention network today. I think it is poorly understood by those opposite that the 1,558 people who are presently in our immigration detention network do not entirely comprise asylum seekers and refugees. In fact, more than 70 per cent of the 1,558 are in the detention centres today because they are being evicted from the country under section 501, and that only occurs when people have very serious criminal records. They're foreigners. They've committed very serious crimes, putting them in prison here in Australia for a year or more, and hence we take the decision to cancel their visa and send them abroad. We make no apology for doing that. That's the bulk of those who are in the immigration detention network at the moment—more than 70 per cent. You then have a couple of hundred people who are in the immigration detention network today because they've come out here under Labor's medevac legislation. They've all been assessed: 25 per cent of them are not refugees, and the others have been assessed as being refugees. Under the legislation and under the consent documents which they all provided, they were due to come out to Australia, get their medical treatment and then return. So really you're only talking about a couple of hundred people who the member for Indi is particularly concerned about. Frankly, this legislation's primary activity has less concern about that group than about the 70 per cent who are there for very serious criminal reasons. That's the first point I want to make.

The second point I make is that a point made repeatedly by the opposition is that we already have the powers to deal with some of the criminal activity which this bill is seeking to address, but the answer to that is: no, we do not. Under the legislation presently, an Australian Border Force officer looking after an immigration detention facility has the power to search for and to seize three items only: a weapon, an escape item or escape assistant, and a migration document—those three things only. They—and this has occurred—can see a person with what looks like drugs in their possession, and the Australian Border Force officers have no power to remove those drugs from the individual in the detention network. This is not a hypothetical; this has occurred in our detention facilities. You can have an individual who has violent extremist material on their iPad, in full view of the Australian Border Force officers looking after these detention networks, and they have no power to remove that iPad from that individual. Again, this is no hypothetical; this has occurred. You can have an individual—a disgusting, disgraceful individual—with child exploitation materials on his mobile phone sending it out to others abroad, in full view of the Australian Border Force officers looking after those detention facilities, and those Australian Border Force officers have no ability to remove that mobile phone from that individual—disgraceful man!

Again, that is no hypothetical situation. In fact, last month alone we had two examples of individuals—one man in Melbourne and another man in Brisbane—who were using their mobile phones to distribute, allegedly in one instance, child exploitation materials to others. This is one of the most disgraceful, despicable things that you can possibly imagine. Yes, the police were called, and they took 24 hours to get to that detention facility in that instance. How much child exploitation material was distributed in the course of that 24 hours? How much evidence did that individual man destroy within that 24 hours?

When individuals have drugs in their possession and they are seen, and they think perhaps the police will be arriving soon, what do you think they'll do with those drugs? Do they distribute them among some of the other individuals in the detention network? Do they get rid of the drugs? They consume the drugs, and that puts at risk the health and safety of some of the other people who are in the detention network.

This is what is at stake. The members opposite pretend that they are in favour of the health and safety of those in the detention network.

See this speech in context