Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

I speak to the amendment foreshadowed in the chamber earlier by the member for Wannon. Whilst I appreciate the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs has put this important bill into the House, the member for Wannon's amendment strengthens and adds clarity to the minister's bill. This is important. And I'm glad the immigration minister has arrived—that's important. I commend him for this bill, because we want to make sure that, if somebody is going to be in Australia, on whatever visa arrangement they are fortunate enough to be in this country on, then they have passed the character test that they do the right thing—they uphold and obey the laws of this country. Indeed, when somebody is applying for citizenship, they make a pledge or an oath, and in that pledge or oath they commit to upholding the laws of this nation. The laws of this nation are very important. As I say, if somebody is fortunate enough to be here, under whatever arrangement they've been able to be provided, then they must follow, strictly, the laws of this country.

The various parts of the member for Wannon's amendment to the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Bill 2023 very much apply to ensure that the wording is strengthened. Indeed, after paragraph 501(6)(a), he has sought to insert 'the person has been convicted of a designated offence' with a note to see various subsections. Each and every part of his amendment strengthens the amendment bill that has been put to the chamber by the minister for immigration.

For the purposes of the character test, a 'designated offence' is an offence against a law in force in Australia, or a foreign country, in relation to which certain conditions are satisfied, including: violence, or a threat of violence, against a person; non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature, including, without limitation, sexual assault and the non-consensual commission of an act of indecency or sharing of an intimate image; and breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person. We heard the member for Sturt referring to this in his contribution. We cannot afford to have people who are here under a visa arrangement breaching the law, breaking the law. We cannot afford to have somebody in this nation who is here as an absolute privilege—indeed, as part of the amendment put forward: 'conspiring with others to commit an offence that is a designated offence' because of any of the situations put forward.

As I say, I commend what the member for Wannon has added to this bill, noting that the national security protection of our borders and, indeed, migration per se, has not been one of Labor's strong points. You only need to read the front-page story of the Australian today to note that. I appreciate that, when Kevin Rudd swept to power in 2007, he came here with a suite of promises to say that he would be very much on board with the Howard-era policies. Indeed, he was not, and the Australian people soon found that out, and 820 boats came with 50,000-plus arrivals, with 8,000 children, and that was such a mess. To this day, it is still an issue for this country.

The member for Wannon's amendment strengthens and adds clarity to what the minister for immigration has put forward. I commend the amendment. I commend the member for Wannon for putting forward this sensible, practical, reasonable amendment, and I urge the House to not only consider it but add it to this bill.

See this speech in context