Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. Unfortunately what those watching will have just seen from the member for Scullin is a classic example of Labor having an each-way bet when it comes to protecting Australians and keeping Australians safe. There are no such wobbles on this side of the chamber; we will continue to stay strong and make sure that we employ the powers needed in order to keep the Australian community safe.

The member for Scullin rightly pointed out that Senator Keneally was only telling half the story when she went on Sky News this morning and claimed Labor would be supporting the bill. It was a bit of a fib; while they might be supporting the bill in the House, they're going to try to amend it in the Senate. As a government, we have made it really clear that this bill is required in order to deport people who do serious harm to Australian citizens. These are convicted criminals. These are not just people we think might be of bad character; they have been convicted of a serious offence. Yet the Labor Party, in the amendments they're going to put into the Senate, are saying: 'We think it goes too far. We think somebody can be convicted of a serious offence but still not meet the threshold for deportation.' It goes to show that they simply can't be trusted to make the hard decisions required to keep Australians safe.

We heard from the member for Scullin a couple of examples where Labor take issue with this bill and think the powers are out of step with what is required. He said Labor was worried that this bill would catch up low-level offenders. Let's just think about which offences this bill deals with. These are people who have been convicted of an offence punishable by jail time of over two years. They have been convicted of offences like stalking, domestic violence, assaulting police officers, breaching AVOs, possessing weapons, concealing child abuse offences, and date rape offences. Which of these would the Labor Party nominate as too low level an offence against Australian citizens in order to justify these people remaining in the country? Breaching an AVO? Stalking a partner? Drugging someone on a date and raping them? This is ridiculous. These are people who have been convicted of these offences. These are not low-level offences by any means.

The member for Scullin claimed that we didn't understand the nature of family violence, that this might stop people from coming forward. But this isn't about people coming forward; you don't just get to make a report and have a partner's visa cancelled; they have to be convicted of an offence. And then, even if they don't get the full sentence of over two years, the government can say the person is not of good character and is deemed a risk to Australian citizens. When it comes to domestic violence, does the member for Scullin really think that someone is not going to come forward in a case where somebody has committed a domestic violence offence—to the extent that they can be convicted—and they can be convicted of an offence that warrants more than two years in jail? Does the member for Scullin really think that, simply because they don't get the full two years in jail from a judge, that person should stay? Because that's the loophole we're trying to close: people are being convicted of these serious offences punishable with more than two years in jail, but activist judges are not giving them two years jail. They're giving them less. I know the imputation it carries when I use the word 'activist' about judges, but there is a level of activism involved in this.

In Queensland—I can only speak for my jurisdiction; that's the jurisdiction that I know—judges can take into account, as part of sentencing, the fact that a person may be deported. So we have judges making decisions about whether or not someone should be deported, and they do it by saying, 'Well, this person will be deported if I give them two years jail, so I'll give them a year and a half,' or, 'I'll give them 12 months'. Well, that's not in keeping with the community's expectations. The community's expectation is that they elect a government to keep them safe and to set rules, and somebody should be deported if they're convicted of a criminal offence, particularly against an Australian citizen. It's not in the hands of judges to decide that they can circumvent that law by giving them a lesser sentence, on the understanding that that will prevent the government from deporting that person. That's the loophole we're trying to close.

Finally, the member for Scullin used the example of New Zealand. Well, New Zealand might be upset that their criminal citizens are being deported back to New Zealand. So what? Why is Labor expecting this government—elected on behalf of Australian citizens—to care more about the feelings of the New Zealand government than they do about Australian citizens against whom violent and heinous crimes are being committed by visa holders who we can't deport because Labor won't support us in closing this loophole? I see it time and time again: the Labor opposition wanting to side with foreign governments and wanting to side with the feelings of foreign diplomats and foreign government officials over what's in the best interest of Australians. We will not do it. We on this side of the chamber will take the side of Australians every single time, in their best interests. And how can Labor argue that it's not in the best interests of Australian citizens to have visa holders who are committing serious crimes, being convicted of them, and not being deported—not having their visas cancelled!

And we're serious about it. We've shown that we're serious about it. We've cancelled over 10,000 visas during our time in government—that is 10,000 individuals convicted of serious offences who, if their visas weren't cancelled, could have gone on to commit more harm against Australian citizens. Certainly, in my electorate, I know if I was walking down the street and I said that to someone, they'd say, 'Well, of course—that's just your job, to get rid of these people who are convicted of crimes and might undertake further crimes against Australian citizens.' Except that it contrasts so starkly with the Labor Party, who didn't do their job. They didn't do their job of protecting Australians. During their last government, the Rudd-Gillard government, they refused or cancelled a total of 1,128 visas—a tenth less. Does anybody on the street think that we only had 10 per cent of the crime that we have today, under the Rudd-Gillard government, that it was some kind of utopian period where people didn't commit crimes and violent crimes? Of course not. People were committing crimes, they were being convicted, and the Rudd-Gillard government—of which many, many members still sit as Labor Party members in this chamber and were involved in that cabinet—didn't have the ticker to cancel those people's visas. And, as a result, Australians were put at risk.

We've cancelled over 10,000 visas. And, just to give people an idea of what we're talking about, in Queensland—again, the jurisdiction that I know best, so that's where I'm going to talk to—we have cancelled 1,800 visas. That's in Queensland alone. Let me give you an idea of some of the offences: 154 visas cancelled from child sex offenders, including those who hold child pornography; 46 murderers; 88 rapists; 119 armed robbers; 316 drug offenders and 633 other violent offenders. Those are the visas that we've cancelled because we've got the ticker to do it, unlike the Labor Party when they were in government.

Now, the government that's got the ticker to do it, to cancel these visas, is coming to this chamber, coming to parliament, and saying: 'We'd like to close a loophole.' It's not good enough that somebody who is holding child exploitation material, child pornography, is allowed to stay in this country as a visa holder just because they don't get two years in jail, because an activist judge goes, 'Well, I could give him two years in jail, but then they'd deport him, so I'll give him a year and a half.' How is that fair on Australian citizens for the largesse they provide to visa holders—because they know that the vast, vast majority of visa holders come in and contribute something to Australian society and contribute exceptionally positively—to have somebody have an activist judge who decides to try and circumvent the law because they don't want somebody to be deported, even though they've been convicted of a serious offence punishable by over two years in jail. That's what this bill does.

The bill changes the test from being based on the actual jail sentence somebody has received when they've been convicted to anybody convicted of an offence punishable by at least two years in prison. Just because they are convicted of these offences doesn't mean they automatically get their visa cancelled. The government still has to look at it. There's still a certain period of appraisal, as you would expect. Every case is different, and all of that. We'll hear all of that from the Law Society, and we'll hear it regurgitated from Labor—lots of excuses. There's still the opportunity for the government to look at it, but the government has to be satisfied they've been convicted of this offence punishable by at least two years imprisonment, they've received a lower imprisonment than that two years and that they pose a risk to Australian community. And who would argue? Which of these Labor politicians who are going to try and amend this bill would have the guts to stand up and say that somebody possessing child exportation material and didn't get two years should deserve to stay? That material might be of an Australian child, or that might lead to further offending, or that material is possessed by any—

Quite right, member for Herbert. It's just not acceptable. So what the Labor Party should be doing is not having an each way bet, not talking out of both sides of their mouth, not saying on one side of their mouth on Sky News: 'We support the bill. There isn't a wafer of difference between us and the government when it comes to keeping Australians safe,' and then sending the member for Scullin in hear with his very low voice, nice and quiet, to say, 'We support you, but actually we're going to amend it and we're going to amend it so it doesn't cover some of the offences that you'd like it to cover, and we're also going to amend it just to make sure New Zealand aren't offended when we send back their criminal citizens to their country.' That's called having a bob each way. That's called not having the ticker to make the decisions that you need to in order to keep Australians safe.

We know that the Labor Party members have form on this—right? We know they have form on this, because it's not just about the fact they won't support this bill so that we can deport convicted criminals. There is a lot of difference between this government and the Labor Party when it comes to our willingness to keep Australians safe. Look at examples Labor Party members have given us, the character references they've written for foreign criminals. The Leader of the Opposition, himself, in 2020—this is recent history, right?—wrote a reference for a violent outlaw motorcycle gang member facing deportation. He wrote to the minister: 'I seek your assistance in finding a solution for this man.' This is a member of a violent outlaw criminal gang responsible for drug importation, responsible for harm against Australian citizens, and the Opposition Leader, just like he wouldn't have a ticker to turn back the boats—that's his own admission; that's not me—writes we just need 'a solution for this man'. Well, there is no other solution for a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, for this government, than deporting him so that he is away from Australian citizens so he cannot cause harm.

The Manager of Opposition Business here in the House likes to be outraged all the time when we try and insinuate we keep Australians safer. In 2014 he wrote a reference for a drug dealer facing deportation, alleged to have imported five kilos of cocaine and 140 kilos of ice. This is a person the Manager of Opposition Business saw fit to write a reference for, to implore the government on—when he had been convicted of importing five kilos of cocaine and 140 kilos of ice! Think of the damage that would do on the street to Australian citizens partaking in that. It is beyond belief.

To Australians who might be listening, I say: judge the Labor Party on what they do, not on what they say. There is a gulf of distance between the opposition Labor Party and this government when it comes to keeping Australians safe. We are the ones who have cancelled 10,000 visas for criminals. They only did a tenth of that. We need these changes to keep deporting criminals to keep you safe, and the Labor Party should support them.

See this speech in context