Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. I was listening to the debate when the member for Herbert, Mr Thompson, was making some excellent points about this bill, like how we need to protect this nation from paedophiles, from child rapists, from those that would push drugs upon our kids—all excellent points. But I also heard the member for Clark contribute to this bill, asking, 'Is it actually necessary?' I listened to the member for Clark, and I think he has many good points. I asked myself: under the current legislation, the migration minister of this country had the power to deport tennis player Novak Djokovic from this country not because of something he had done incorrectly but because they thought that somehow his mere presence in this country would do something which would, I think the minister's words were, 'increase antivax sentiment'. Antivax sentiment is code for antifreedom sentiment. The antivax debate in this country is about a case of freedom of choice.

In this country the minister has the power to expel someone for their political views, even though they have never espoused those views in this country. Just look at the details of that particular case and what happened. We know that Novak Djokovic arrived lawfully as the world's No. 1 tennis player for the Australian Open, a Grand Slam event. That Grand Slam event, the Australian Open, brings our nation enormous wealth and prestige. I have been overseas at that time of year many times, and it is one of the few times we see Australia mentioned on the front page of the world's newspapers as they report the results of the Australian Open. So, when the world's No. 1 player arrived, there should have been a red carpet and a marching band. Instead, the way he was treated at Melbourne Airport—remembering that he had lawful documents and had come here lawfully—is what you would expect if someone turned up at Melbourne Airport with a kilo of hashish in their bag. He was held overnight in Melbourne Airport and questioned for hours on end. That is not how we want to treat international sporting personalities when they come to our country to contribute to our nation. What precedent has this set?

We know that it is not just the Australian Open that we rely on for overseas events. Australia has to compete for every single major sporting event. We don't have any great special right to host any single event. We are up against competition from the Middle East, from South-East Asia, from China, from countries all around the world that want to host world cups in their particular sport. But what we have now done is handed all those other nations a competitive advantage, a reason they can attack Australia. They can argue against Australia. Why should you have your No. 1 world sporting event, your world cup, in Australia, knowing that the Australian government can deport your top player not because of something he has done wrong but because of a political issue?

Novak Djokovic was a political prisoner in this country, and that should bring shame upon every single one of us in this parliament. If we're going to amend the law of the Migration Act we should be looking at taking away that provision that gives the minister that discretion, to ensure something like that never happens again. We need to give each sporting group that goes out to compete for these events worldwide the confidence and the backing that they cannot be attacked by other nations calling upon our record on expelling and deporting their major players for nothing other than the political expediency of the government.

If you think our tourism industry is going to come bouncing back when we reopen our borders, I suggest having a look at the tweet that George Brandis, our high commissioner in the UK, recently put out a couple of days ago. The tweet he put out was:

We have a simple message to our best mates in Britain: we can't wait to welcome you back down under.

It's had over 2,800 comments. But, sadly, the majority of those comments are negative towards Australia. Our international reputation has been trashed over the past 12 months. The government claims that it doesn't mandate compulsory vaccines. Yet it won't let Australians exit the country unless they have been 'fully vaccinated'—whatever that means at a particular point in time. Is it two jabs? Three jabs? Who knows. It may be four, five or six jabs sometime in the future.

We've got to get our tourism sector firing again. One of the ways we can do it is admit to the mistakes we made under the Migration Act with Novak Djokovic. We as a nation should apologise to him. We should apologise to the Serbian people for what we did—making him a political prisoner, an example. We ignored the science and the evidence. The idea that someone with the fitness of Novak Djokovic poses a health risk to anyone in this country is a complete nonsense. It should never have happened. Yet that is the existing power the minister has under the Migration Act today. It is difficult to see why these additional powers are needed. If I'm to err on this issue, I'd prefer to err on the side of giving the minister the discretion when it comes to rapists, paedophiles, criminals and drug pushers—those who try to push upon others the drugs they make for pure profit. Those people do not belong in Australia. I thank the House.

See this speech in context