Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The subject of the MPI has become very topical. I did have to make sure that I reread it multiple times. Just to confirm for those at home, it is:

"The Immigration Minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe".

Just to clarify for those at home, it is, again:

"The Immigration Minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe".

Sometimes in this House, it's not so much what those opposite say as what they do, but today they've shown through the minister's actions and also what they've done and talked about for the last 25 minutes in this MPI. For 25 minutes, this government, with their directives from their tactics committee and the talking points they were given, had a choice. They had a choice to defend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, to outline the great job he's doing keeping the Australian people safe, to pull our arguments apart and defend him. That's what they could have done.

Instead, they've chosen to try to redirect to another topic because they know that the minister's actions are indefensible. I have no doubt that the member for Spence, who will speak next, will spend five minutes talking about anything but defending the minister for immigration—although I will stay and listen if he wants to defend the actions of the minister for immigration, if he wants to defend a person whose direction led to someone who should have been deported being in this country and raping someone's 14-year-old stepdaughter while that lady's mother was giving birth. I want to see them defend the minister's direction, his direct action. But they know they can't.

The minister himself could have stood there for 10 minutes to defend himself today, and he chose to leave. He was asked five, six or seven questions in question time today where he could have defended himself and outlined his position for three minutes. Not once did the minister go beyond one minute in defending himself or the Albanese government. It is clear that he is not up to the job. Whether it's ministerial direction 99, whether it is the NZYQ case or whether it is the boats landing in Australia again, there's failure after failure by this minister. He refuses to take responsibility.

Again, it's another test of this Prime Minister. He is refusing to lead the Australian people. He is refusing to keep us safe. In April 2022 at the leaders debate the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said: 'If I'm Prime Minister, I'll accept responsibility each and every day. I'll work hard and I'll accept responsibility, not always seek to blame someone else.' Is this Prime Minister going to take responsibility for the repeated failures of his immigration minister? Is he going to sack his immigration minister? After six months of repeated incompetence and failure, it's clear that he's not going to. This Prime Minister isn't prepared to make the tough decisions to keep the Australian people safe.

As the member for Forrest so rightly articulated previously, these are not theoretical conversations we are talking about. These are young men, young women and young families that are victims of these crimes. Let's be clear: these are victims of crime that didn't have to be. If the minister had taken responsibility, shown leadership and shown courage, these people would not have been in this country to commit the crimes that they have committed. Those opposite know that this minister's actions are indefensible, because they are going to stand and spend another five minutes talking about anything but defending the minister for immigration, although I would be very happy to be proven wrong by the member for Spence. After sitting through 25 minutes of those opposite refusing to defend the minister's actions, I wonder if one member opposite will move away from the talking points and will actually try to defend the indefensible. It is the government's responsibility to keep Australians safe, and they are failing the Australian people— (Time expired)

See this speech in context