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

Member for Canberra, nobody denies that there have been success stories of people who have come to this nation, people who have been granted humanitarian visas, people who have contributed mightily to our nation. But to say that we are politicising and weaponising this and that there's no gutter into which we won't stoop is I think a bridge too far. I think that is just putting the divisive nature of this whole topic where it doesn't need to go.

There is a front-page story in the Daily Telegraph today, and the heading is 'Who vetted his visa'—it needs a question mark, but we'll let that go through to the keeper. And Clare Armstrong, who is a very balanced journalist, has written an article with the kicker heading 'Coalition demands to know why this man was let in'. 'This man' is visual artist Fayez Al-Hassani. He has been granted a visa to Australia. He has previously hosted political members of Hamas and other terrorist organisations at his Gaza Art Institute, and he's had brothers and sons affiliated with the same violent groups. Three of his deceased brothers and two of his sons participated in groups designated as terror organisations by Australia or its allies. This man should be on the first plane out of here.

Today the immigration minister, the member for Watson, when the member for Wannon, the shadow immigration minister, was asking questions—of the Prime Minister, I might add, but answered by the minister; I appreciate that it is his portfolio—kept saying, 'Well, this is the department; this is our officials.' Yes, that is true, but Labor are the government, and this is on their watch. And it is not just the member for Wannon who is asking the questions. He is asking on behalf of the people of Australia.

Right at the end of question time there was an interjection—'running scared'—and there was this back and forth about running scared. I'll tell you who's running scared. It is not just that the Prime Minister, running away from the questions. The Australian public are very worried. The Australian public are very scared about their safety. Cast your mind back 2½ years. The question remains: are Australians better off now than they were 2½ years ago? Are Australians safer now than they were 2½ years ago? The answer to both questions is, unfortunately, a resounding 'no'. Australians are not better off, and Australians certainly don't feel safer.

I know that the member for Wills is a man of good intent, a man of good heart. He was Prime Minister Rudd's national principal, national security adviser. He's been put in a role as the special envoy for social cohesion. He's filled that position since July—and it's a big ask, a big demand on him. We should not need a special envoy for social cohesion, but, unfortunately, we've got types like this Fayez Al-Hassani, who has been let into the country wrongly, and he should be on the first plane out of here. But unfortunately it's the likes of him, and others who are now in this country—on visas granted on this government's watch—who are causing social disruption, social incohesion, and it is causing people to feel unsafe in their homes.

Why is it right that aged-care centres that have many Holocaust victims now have to put security in place? Why is it right that Jewish schools have to have armed guards protecting their children—our children, Australian children who were born here, who know no different? These children have lived the Australian lifestyle. They are Australians. Then we've got mongrels like this bloke who've come into this country and who should be on the first plane out of here but unfortunately are not. They've been let in by this government. They are causing social disruption. It is just wrong. The Australian people have had a gutful and are demanding to know: why is this so? Why is this the case? And Labor, the minister and the Prime Minister, cannot give those answers. They cannot provide the social cohesion that should be the first order of government.

See this speech in context