Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wannon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

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

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's actually a very, very sad day for this chamber today, because the No. 1 priority of any government is to keep the Australian community safe, and yet we have seen, time after time, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs fail, through his actions, to do that, and we've seen, time and time again, through the answers to the questions that we have put to him, his failure to take any responsibility whatsoever for keeping the Australian community safe.

If you google 'Ministerial direction 99'—just google it on your phone—what you will see is that, on 23 January last year, the minister for immigration signed a direction, and this is what the direction said: that the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia will become a primary consideration for the AAT when they are considering the cancellation of a visa. Did we hear that from the minister for immigration today? No, we did not. That change was made on 23 January last year. Before then, that direction was not there. A tribunal did not have to take into account the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia as a primary consideration.

What has the minister for immigration done since this debacle came to light? He's been hiding, like he normally does. Has he fronted up and owned his decision? Has he ever fronted up and owned one of his decisions? Where is he now? Has anyone seen him out in the media? Has anyone seen him at the dispatch box? He hides, he hides and he hides. And he hides—we've seen it—behind things. He hid behind the High Court when 153 hardened criminals got released into the community. 'It had nothing to do with me,' he said. And than what happened? He gave us a commitment that they would be monitored, that they would wear ankle bracelets. What happened to that? We found out a month ago that nearly 50 per cent of those 153 hardened criminals aren't wearing ankle bracelets and are not being constantly monitored, yet that assurance was given right there in that seat.

Now what do we find out from this ministerial direction? I've got to say I find these examples very hard to talk about. On Saturday we read in the paper about a New Zealand citizen who had come to our nation, come on a visa, and what he had done was rape his stepdaughter while his partner was giving birth to their child. I don't think you could get a much more heinous crime than that. That that individual wasn't deported from this nation beggars belief, and that the minister will not own that beggars belief. He had two options. He could have acted himself, as the minister, and cancelled the visa on the spot. In another instance, one that was also available to him, he could have appealed it to the Federal Court. Do you think he did either of those options? He didn't. So now we are faced with this individual here in our community, staying as a direct result of the failure of this minister to act.

The minister has tried to hide behind the AAT. But I'll give you just one example. This is about individual CHCY:

… Rape—domestic violence offence and Indecent treatment of children under 16lineal descendant/guardian/carer…

That is what the tribunal said. It went on:

The Tribunal finds CHCY has lived for the majority of his life in Australia working full time, making a contribution to the taxation system, the community and his family. The Tribunal places weight on this consideration noting the Direction clearly articulates tolerance should be given to non-citizens in CHCY's circumstances:

I don't think you could get a more direct example of the tribunal saying that that person stayed in this country because of the direction that the minister gave. It is as clear as day.

Do you know what we heard over the weekend, Deputy Speaker? We heard the Prime Minister say: 'No, it's the responsibility of the AAT, and one of the members of the AAT was appointed by the coalition. That's where the fault lies.' That's what the Prime Minister said. He tried to blame a judicial body. But then it came out—and we haven't heard from the Prime Minister since then—that the former Speaker, Anna Burke, sat on the tribunal and said that she had to take account of ministerial direction 99. So that put paid to all that. They couldn't use that anymore because Anna Burke, someone who has sat in this House, actually pointed to it. Have we heard the Prime Minister come into this place and apologise? Have we heard Minister Giles apologise? I think today there were five or six questions to him just seeking a simple apology, just wanting him to admit: 'You know what? I got this wrong and I apologise.'

We haven't yet got to the really sad situation where one individual who was released into the Australian community and not deported has allegedly—I say allegedly—committed a murder. Now, that shows you that, when you fiddle with these things, where you've got a government that thinks that it can change the law without consequences, this is the sad reality of what can happen in the Australian community. People are losing their lives, allegedly because of the actions of one of the people who should have been deported but, because of that ministerial direction, it would seem, were not.

I want to finish up by again highlighting that that ministerial direction, when you Google it, has the minister's blue-pen signature. That direction says that the strength, nature and duration of an individual's ties to Australia should be a primary consideration for the AAT when they are considering the cancellation of visas.

Now, what will we do if we win the next election? We will rescind that direction and we will make sure that every single one of those individuals is deported. We will deport these people, and I would love to hear from the Minister for Education, if he's up next, an admission that the government has got this wrong—admit right here and now that you will start deporting these people. They came here as non-citizens. They did not abide by Australian law. They committed the most heinous crimes and they have no place in our community.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition has come into this place wanting to debate multiple and repeated failures. We heard about some of those earlier today: multiple and repeated failures, like the skills shortages that they left our country confronting; like the lack of school funding; like the numerous climate policies, none of which they were able to deliver; like the housing shortage that they have left Australians confronting; like the lack of wage growth that existed under their watch; like the high rate of inflation that Australians faced under their watch; like their mismanagement of the NDIS; like their lack of support for Australia's manufacturing sector; and like the sorry state of affairs that they left our aged-care sector confronting.

But the most galling is to hear from those opposite about what they wish to debate today when they are led by a Leader of the Opposition who was also the Minister for Defence who repeatedly failed to support those who keep and have kept Australians safe. Those opposite, led by the former defence minister, now opposition leader, had the extraordinary practice in defence of making huge announcements carrying massive price tags but completely failing to put in place any of the necessary funding required. What's interesting is that the Leader of the Opposition doubled down on that in his budget reply, announcing policies about nuclear with no detail whatsoever and then having a fight, over the course of the week, between his shadow defence minister and his shadow Treasurer about the level of defence spending they would actually commit to, whether they would match our defence spending and whether they would try to increase their defence spending. Apparently the shadow Treasurer didn't agree to that either.

What we do know is what they did when they were in government: multiple and repeated failures, not delivering the necessary funding that was so important to delivering the capabilities that our Defence Force require. And I don't just mean the hardware; I mean looking after our defence people as well. That isn't limited to those currently in uniform; it includes failing to look after those that have hung up their uniforms.

The opposition leader as defence minister liked to roll out the red carpet, favouring cliched soundtracks and making grandiose statements, but, when it came to the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise, with a cost of $35 billion, they committed just $1 billion.

The members opposite want to know how this is relevant. A member raised an MPI in respect of repeated failures, and I am addressing exactly that.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the member for Wannon on a point of order. I'm pretty sure I know what's coming.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance. I thought he might make one small effort to defend the minister for immigration—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot argue the point now. You did have a discussion with me beforehand. I have sat in many MPIs, and there is a great deal of latitude given to the issue of relevance in these debates. I'm listening carefully to the minister 's reply. He has absolutely referred to the multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe. Granted, it's a different take to the one you have, but that is part of the topic.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon seems quite concerned about this topic, and I am addressing it—don't you worry. I want to talk about the failures of the opposition when they were in government to keep Australians safe. I want to talk about their failure to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs was adequately resourced. I want to talk about their failure to ensure that those who had kept Australians safe, those who had worn our uniform, those who had put themselves in harm's way for our nation, were provided with the supports, services and compensation that they very justly needed and deserved. Instead, what we saw was a continued failure to properly resource the Department of Veterans' Affairs, meaning that we had a backlog when we came to government of some 42,000 claims from veterans that had not even been looked at by someone within the department. That wasn't the department's fault; it wasn't given the funding for enough people to do that work.

That's what this government has gotten about doing. In the October 2022 budget, all the way back then, we made sure that we funded 500 additional staff for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It wasn't just about providing the numbers; it was about making sure that they were staffed with Australian public servants, that we weren't relying on the churn of labour hire, people with insecure employment who sometimes didn't even last long enough in the department to complete the very necessary training to make sure that they could assess those veterans' claims. In the budget that was delivered the other week, we committed to further investing in an additional 141 staff to ensure that we can process the claims of veterans faster.

Yet, when we talk about failure, we had the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply come forward and say that he thought the Australian government was employing too many public servants. Apparently, making sure we have enough people to process the very legitimate claims of veterans to get the support and services that they need is but a triviality to the Leader of the Opposition. He thinks we should get rid of those people. He also complained about the level of government expenditure. When we look at the level of government expenditure, part of what is driving that increase in government expenditure is that we have gotten on with the job of processing veterans' claims. What has that meant? It has meant that over five years we are increasing expenditure on veterans' pensions, on their compensation, on their health support and services and on their mental health support in the order of $6.5 billion. We are getting on with actually processing veterans' claims and making sure that they get what they need and deserve.

Why do we do this, though? We do this because we understand the solemn commitment that every Australian government must make to their serving Defence men and women that we will look after them, that when they put on our nation's uniform, when they come home, when they hang up that uniform or when they face injury they will get the support that they need and, frankly, deserve and their families need and deserve. That's why we have made a lot about increasing our resourcing for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It's why we've been very clear that we're not just providing the additional resources that the department needed, and which it was without for so long, but that it improves the lives of the people who work for the department, it improves the lives of veterans and it improves the lives of their families. And we want to see that support for veterans to continue to be of a bipartisan nature across this chamber. So I think it is particularly galling when we see the opposition then say: 'Oh, you're employing too many public servants. You're spending too much money.' That's money that those veterans and families always deserved and were always entitled to but, because of a lack of resourcing, they were not able to receive it. It was like the foot was placed on the hose of support being provided to our veterans.

So what have we done? In this budget there's an additional $477 million going to increase support for more than 340,000 veterans and their dependents. We'll soon introduce legislation to implement the first recommendation of the interim report of the defence and veterans suicide royal commission, to simplify and harmonise the legislation that underpins the entitlements for our veterans. We're employing an additional 141 staff in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and we're boosting veterans' home care and community nursing programs with an additional $48.4 million of funding to ensure that there are no gaps in the service provision provided to our veterans and families—so that they always get what they need and deserve. Australian veterans deserve better than what they were getting from an underresourced department from the previous government—the litany of failures that are the subject of the debate today. It's about protecting those who support and protect Australia. They deserve to know that long after they've hung up their uniforms they will be supported by the government that they have sworn to protect, the values of which they have sworn to uphold. Our veterans have kept, and continue to keep, Australians safe. Supporting them is the least we can do.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I anticipated that I would need to commence my remarks by refuting some form of defence from the lead government speaker to the central proposition of this matter of public importance. In fact, I half expected I might be addressing comments from the immigration minister himself, because I assumed that he would take the opportunity to defend himself and stand up for himself. But he can't even get a member of his own government to address any form of defence of his actions, his behaviour and his conduct as immigration minister. Frankly, that says more than any attempt the government could make in this debate to defend or make excuses for this minister and this minister's performance.

The first duty of any government is to keep our nation safe and to keep the people of our nation safe—to defend our nation and our interests. This minister has singularly failed in his responsibility, in his commission of office, to do that through the powers and responsibilities that he is given as our immigration minister. It's his job to make sure that we have a credible framework for controlling who comes into this country. And when the wrong people are in this country and they need to be removed from this country, it is his job to keep Australians safe in the process. As we know, anything but that has happened. Unfortunately, each and every day we open the newspaper to another horrendous story. And even though we know there are 150-odd people who have been released because this government failed to anticipate the circumstance that we find ourselves in, it still shocks me that, day after day, when they have an opportunity to correct their mistake, take responsibility for it and make the changes that we constructively suggest to them to keep Australians safe—to change the minister and to put someone else in charge who is actually capable and competent to keep people safe—this government prioritises politics, the protection racket for the minister and avoiding embarrassment of the government over the safety of the people of this country. That is absolutely shameful.

As the shadow minister has articulated in his contribution, there are some simple things that need to be done immediately. I would say, first and foremost, remove the minister and appoint a new one, because this minister can't bring himself to admit any form of fault or failure or, in particular, appeal this ludicrous direction 99, which is putting Australians at harm.

There is a community expectation for governments not to be obsessed with their own longevity, but to be obsessed with the interest of the people of this country. And you know what? Good governments tend to get re-elected. This government is so obsessed with politics and so frightened of admitting mistakes that are so obvious to everyone else. But they can't see the wood from the trees on this issue and they can't see the simple reality that people want action and they want change.

The Prime Minister could take action. He could remove this minister. He's standing by this minister, and that says a lot, because there's a very long list of pretty fundamental reasons why this minister should have been removed well and truly before now. It's gotten completely ridiculous at this point. We won't have the Prime Minister coming in here defending the minister, we won't have the minister coming in here to defend himself and we won't even have a speaker from the government given the opportunity to say, 'Hey, opposition, you guys have got this wrong. He's doing a great job, and let me tell you why.' They can't even bring themselves to say that they stand by him. Maybe he's for the chop sooner than we know, and those opposite have been given the inside run on that and we'll find out sooner rather than later, but it seems to be taking an inordinately long period of time for the Prime Minister to do the simple thing that everyone expects him to do and get rid of this guy. He can't even get a single member of his government to stand up in the House of Representatives and defend him when given the opportunity in this matter of public importance.

So I say to the Prime Minister and I say to the government, 'Please, please, please, do yourselves a favour as much as everyone else and get rid of this guy. Please appoint someone that is actually going to take the job seriously, get briefed properly, anticipate risks of court decisions that will put Australians at risk and make the decisions that are necessary to keep Australians safe.' Every day that you don't do that and every day that you stand by this guy—or at least pretend to or purport to stand by this guy—you're leaving the people in the community in harm's way and you will not be rewarded at the next election for that, I can assure you.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've said it before and I'll say it again, 'When this bloke stands up you know why Christopher Pyne sent him here. It's so we'd all miss Christopher Pyne, because Christopher Pyne certainly wouldn't win a gold medal for boring for Australia. I mean, they're losing it, aren't they? We just heard the last speaker say, 'Where's the minister? Why isn't he here? I haven't seen him for weeks.' He was just here in question time and answered every one of your questions. But don't let facts get in the way of your pre-prepared little rant. It is pathetic.

They were a hopeless government. Their whole magic trick for the last two years is to try and make Australians forget that they were the government under Abbott and Turnbull and Morrison and the entire tragic catastrophe—three prime ministers, three treasurers, six defence ministers and God knows how many in total through the ministry. But no, it's not about them at all. They were a hopeless government and they're also no good as an opposition.

They could bring any topic they choose for debate in the MPI. Their job—here's a tip—is to bring a topic about the big issues facing the future of the country. But no. They always bang the fear drum, they take the low road, as the former Prime Minister said, 'the hand in the chum bucket' whenever they get up to speak.

It's pretty telling though, isn't it? They want to talk about safety and security, but they never want to talk about economic security, do they? It's always telling the topics they don't want to bring to debate. They don't want to talk about the strength of the jobs market, with more jobs created than any first-term government in Australian history. They don't want to talk about inflation coming down, which is critical for interest rate cuts. They don't want to talk about Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts or the $300 energy rebate.

They certainly don't want to talk about the two surplus budgets that the government has delivered—the first in 20 years—that they couldn't deliver in a decade in office, despite getting the cups made. Remember the 'Back in Black' cups? They don't want to talk about debt being $153 billion lower in the forecast than the trillion dollar of Liberal debt and the mess they left behind. They certainly don't want to talk about safety and energy security, or that the retail energy bill benchmark is trending down after a decade of their mess. They certainly don't want to talk about a future made in Australia.

No, it's all fear and loathing negativity, because they have nothing positive to offer. The Leader of the Opposition is all negativity; he has no plan. We saw that in the budget reply speech. Here's a tip: being negative is not a plan. Being angry every day is not a strategy. It is anger overload over there, as you've seen. They've got nothing to say on the cost of—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon on a point of order?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The MPI did say, 'The immigration minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe.' I thought we would at least get one speaker trying to defend the immigration minister.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Wannon, I dealt with this a moment ago. If you are flagrantly going to abuse the dispatch box by repeating a point of order you have already brought to this debate, then I will not look kindly on that.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think he just proved two points with that little interjection: one, they don't want to talk about economic security and safety, and, two, he proved that the best thing the Leader of the Opposition has going for him is he has no challenger. Apparently this bloke is auditioning every day to knock him off. If you're the best that's coming behind him, he's going to reign there for a very long time, sitting in that chair. Even for them, the sickening irony in them bringing this debate is staggering—'keeping Australians safe'.

Here are some inconvenient facts. The Leader of the Opposition was once the defence minister—oh, the glory days. He was one of six defence ministers they had in nine years, remember, with the chaos, the cuts and the cover-up. They cut promised defence investment. That's not keeping us safe. They failed to deliver projects on time, with 28 projects running a total of 97 years late. That's not keeping us safe. They were all announcement and no delivery. They loved the announcement—they ran out of Australian flags, I'm sure, in the Department of Defence; they were behind him for every announcement, crowding him out—but $42 billion of their announcements had no funding. You don't run onto the battlefield waving a press release or a photo of the minister in front of the flag.

There are zero submarines from Japan, zero submarines from France and zero AUKUS submarines ordered. There is a battlefield airlifter which can't fly to the battlefield. That's not keeping us safe. The hypocrisy of bringing a debate on migration and home affairs when the Leader of the Opposition was the home affairs minister—his was an utter mess of a department, and having criminal syndicates, trafficking and rorts in integrity is not keeping us safe. A hundred thousand fake asylum seekers arrived by plane over their decade. Those opposite did nothing about it. That's not keeping us safe. No enforcement and fake cuts to migration. That's not keeping us safe.

The home affairs minister and the immigration minister are cleaning up these people's mess. (Time expired)

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding the multiple and repeated failures by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to keep Australians safe. I thank the honourable member for Wannon, the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, for bringing this MPI to the attention of the House. I did wonder whether I was in fact speaking on the same MPI as the member for Bruce, who, during his five minutes, at no time attempted to, at any stage, defend the immigration minister. He didn't even speak about immigration but spoke about a whole range of other issues. So it needs to be said that not even those on that side can defend their own minister.

The first priority of a federal government must always be to keep our citizens, our communities and our streets safe. This immigration minister has demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to do that, and he has done that in two main actions: his response to the High Court decision of NZYQ and his direction 99.

I note that the member for Bruce did say that the minister was here today and answered questions in question time. By my count—and I asked one of those questions—he was given seven questions from our side. At three minutes each, he was given the opportunity to respond for 21 minutes. I don't think that for any of those answers he went for longer than 30 seconds. So to say that he was here and he answered questions is simply not the case.

The NZYQ decision was a decision of the High Court. We, on our side, know that and we have never said that the minister responsible for the High Court decision; however, we live in a Westminster system of government. What the minister is responsible for are things that happen in his portfolio—and just to reminder the minister: that is immigration. The minister—as a responsible minister—was responsible for knowing what legal risks were coming up and to ask his department, for example, 'What court cases do we have coming up?' He was responsible to have been aware that, as his department had apparently told him months out from when the High Court handed down its decision, it was likely to find against the Commonwealth. It also did not help that, during that case, the minister put in a statement of agreed facts that NZYQ could not be removed from Australia. So, while the minister may say that he did all he could to defend that case, his direction to his own team of lawyers flies in the face of that.

It was incumbent upon him to have legislation to deal with that decision ready to go the minute that the judgement came down. Instead, we then saw over 150 very serious offenders released into the community. These included seven murderers, 37 sex offenders and 72 violent offenders, and many of these have again committed heinous crimes within our community. Nobody who has seen the photos of poor Ninette Simons, a cancer survivor and grandmother, will be anything but repulsed by what has occurred there. For the minister to still fail to front up and apologise for this is completely wrong and shows that he will not take responsibility for his own actions.

Minister Giles has blamed the High Court, he has blamed the AAT, and he has blamed his own department, but we need to look at ministerial direction 99. This is a direction that the minister himself has signed. He has now signed a document that says that a decision-maker must show greater tolerance to noncitizens if he or she has lived in the Australian community for a long time or could show a connection to Australia. That is signed by Minister Giles. That is not anything to do with the High Court. It's not the AAT. It's not the department. His department and the AAT have the obligation to have regard to that direction when they're making their decision. So how then can the minister say: 'Oh, this is not me. This is on somebody else'? In all of these circumstances, the immigration minister has failed to keep Australians safe.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

SWANSON () (): The overriding premise of today's matter of public importance is 'keeping Australians safe'. When you come to federal parliament, the two key tenets of what we do here in federal parliament—and I often talk to my students about this when they come to visit us here in Parliament House—are the budget and defence. We are charged here in Canberra with those two strings to our bow.

The first part of this is really being able to balance the books, and we have been able to do that. We have been able to deliver three budgets now with budgets in surplus. Those opposite weren't able to do that, even though they did have the coffee mugs made and the press releases ready to issue. Even though they absolutely delight in saying, 'The problem with Labor is that they can't manage the books'—they say this by rote—here's the thing: we can manage the books. We have delivered surpluses. We've cut our deficit. We've cut the amount that we need to borrow to service the debt that our nation has. Treasurer Chalmers is doing a fantastic job. At an absolute base level for Australians, we are managing our economy far and beyond what anyone on the other side did for 10 years. In terms of safety, that is the primal thing for so many Australians. They want to know that they have a government that can manage the money like they do in their homes every day trying to pay their mortgage.

The other part of what we're sent here to do is defend the nation. We regularly ask other Australians to pull on a uniform in defence of this nation. I find it very curious that the opposition brings matters of public importance like this one, beating that drum of fear and trying to say to our Australian community, 'Oh, it's a shambles. It's no good. The immigration minister is not doing a good job,' when for 10 years they systematically underspent in areas of defence and immigration. We had a one-million-application backlog in immigration under their watch. People came here on planes. When people did come by boats—and they did—we had no knowledge. The coalition said, 'It's an on-water matter, and we can't talk about it.' So to suggest that we are doing a worse job than they did in their 10 years is, quite frankly, bunkum. It is despicable actually. Also, all they're trying to do is raise the fear of Australian people, raise their ire with our government, when we have turned up, cleaned up the coalition's mess and really we are making a fist of the dreadful hand that was dealt to us when we came to government. To suggest that we are not doing a reasonable job and trying to fix this matter and clear it up properly within the constraints of law, and the High Court, is beyond the pale. I find it quite frustrating and almost insulting from an opposition who—it is now quite obvious—have really no policies to bring forward to the Australian people. All they've got left in their bag of tricks is fear—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And loathing.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and loathing, yes. Thank you, Member for Blair, for that interjection. It is fear and loathing and whipping up concern in the Australian community about a government that is delivering on tax cuts and health care and doing more in the education space. Some of us do remember promises like 'There won't be a dollar difference between Labor and Liberal when it comes to education.' Thank you, Christopher Pyne. And then they went ahead and cut the budget. Some of us have got long enough memories to be able to remember what was said over there and what was delivered. And let me tell you: with every promise we have made as a government, we have delivered, and that is the difference between Australians being safe and those opposite telling Australians they're safe, albeit to a Tom Cruise soundtrack—and that happened in my electorate, so don't try and tell me that didn't happen. I witnessed it. It's this whole thing of 'You're not safe, and they're not doing a very good job with immigration.' Let me tell you: we are doing a far superior job than anyone opposite did for 10 years. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wannon, the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, for this MPI, 'The immigration minister's multiple and repeated failures to keep Australians safe'. I actually find it very difficult to be standing here today to talk on this issue. Firstly, it is staggering to me that not one of the members opposite speaking on this MPI has actually defended the minister and his actions—because you cannot defend the indefensible, and that's what the members opposite are facing. But what's even more staggering for me personally is that not one person—and not the minister—has talked about the human toll of these decisions, the victims. We've heard question after question today, and they do come back to the minister's decisions. The minister repeatedly in this House has given, over the period of his time, what I think are totally inane answers. It's a matter of shame for the minister. As we hear these useless platitudes, as they pretend to keep Australians safe, what do the minister and the government think about the victims, all those who have been offended against by, I think, at least 28 of those 150 people since they were released? What about the victims of those people? That's who I'm feeling for today—those people.

I am a mum and grandma, and I'm very proud of my grandkids, and I think about how a New Zealand citizen, a stepfather, raped his 14-year-old stepdaughter at a time that his partner, her mother, was giving birth to their child, and immediate action was not taken to deport that man. The minister could have cancelled that man's visa immediately. Surely—surely!—given the circumstances, that should have been the immediate reaction to this. Anybody who would consider what that 14-year-old girl has gone through—and we have heard today question after question about absolutely horrendous crimes being committed against young people, young girls—can't excuse that. It's a matter of shame that this minister has sat on this issue. His ministerial direction actually gave strength to this by not deporting the worst of the worst criminals. For anybody who doesn't think this is catastrophic: how about they go and talk to or listen to the victims of these crimes and then come in here and say, 'This is not a serious matter of public importance'? How many other women and young girls—the members talk about shock and horror, and beating up fear: try being a single woman or a single young girl who gets caught in this situation. We heard about one repeatedly in question time today. Those opposite try to excuse the minister 's lack of action; I can't! On our side, we have a shadow minister who can't excuse that either—and rightly so. Anybody who takes this lightly is condemned, in my opinion.

What on earth did Labor think would happen when the minister himself gave the direction that said the strength, nature and duration of an individual with ties to Australia was a primary consideration in cancelling a visa? Try telling that to the 14-year-old girl who was raped. Try telling that to her as a valid reason for not cancelling the visa, not getting him out of here and not keeping her and others safe. I don't find that to be a valid reason. I'm actually profoundly hurt that not one of those opposite has spoken about the human toll, because these decisions have caused a human toll. If it were any one of us who had direct connection to these people, we would be standing in this place and saying, 'It's not okay.' I'm standing for all Australians and saying, 'It's not okay, and what the minister has done here has been appalling.'

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll go directly to the human cost. The former speaker mentioned the human cost. I've listened closely to previous speakers, and I want to shed some light on the significant support from our government for those who not only keep Australians safe but continue to do so. This is an MPI, and we all understand that we are able to look at the subject and see whether it's able to have some light shone on it. That's what those on this side are doing, because it refers to failures to keep Australians safe. We will shine a light on those opposite and their failures to do so. We're talking about Australians and the failure of those opposite to keep Australians safe—in particular, veterans.

On the human cost those opposite talked about: try 42,000 Australian veterans in a backlog of claims to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That's because sufficient funds were not put into that department to deal with the claims. I understand well, as do many on our side—and also some on the opposite side of the chamber, if they're honest—the extraordinary human cost to Australian veterans and their families. Those opposite want to talk about human cost; those who put the uniform on should receive the best-possible care that we have and that we're able to put into place. That's what we did in the budget. Our most important capability is our people.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear someone on that side scoff at that, and that's unfortunate. That's unfortunate, because what we saw over the years was a government—and the Leader of the Opposition, in fact, was a defence minister, and they did roll out the red carpets. Unfortunately, they didn't put enough money into capability. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to having the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide. They finally agreed to do it but then continued to underfund the services that veterans and their families relied on. That's how we ended up with a backlog of 42,000 Australian veterans waiting to get the support that they needed.

We've heard from the veterans minister himself previously—and this is not something that he has crowed about, but it is significant—that billions of dollars more were put into the budget to make sure that we continued to get rid of that backlog by helping Australian veterans. We funded 500 additional places to get on top of the claims and, now that we've done that, we're investing further with an additional 141 staff to process claims faster. But it's not just those on this side of the chamber. I think it was the member for Groom himself who said that he would leave the government should there not be sufficient funding put into the Department of Veterans' Affairs. He now sits over there on the crossbenches because those opposite, when they were in government, didn't properly fund the Department of Veterans' Affairs. With my own eyes I saw him stand up at a press conference and say that if those opposite, the government at the time, didn't put sufficient funding into DVA to deal with the 42,000—this was his own government he was talking about betraying veterans and their families by not putting enough into the services that they required. He now sits over there because he'd had an absolute gutful of that.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey?

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

The member opposite referenced the member for Groom. He should actually be referencing the member for Calare. The member for Groom is very much still a member of the opposition. I just think it's important for Hansard. I know he wouldn't deliberately mislead; I just wanted that clarified.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you like to clarify that?

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The member for Calare is the fellow over there on the backbench. He used to be part of their government but left in disgust because they wouldn't properly fund the DVA.

But I've neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to those opposite who didn't spend the money that was required to look after the people who kept our nation safe, and that was the subject of this MPI.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am usually not one for commenting on the groundhog-day-like nature of the breadth and depth of what those opposite bring to the MPI table each day. Perhaps the member for Wannon has Tuesdays rostered in as immigration day on the calendar. If so, bring it on. Every day they want to come into the chamber and spruik the credentials of the Leader of the Opposition as a no-nonsense hardliner. They give a free kick to the government every time, right in front of the sticks.

Can I just give a humble mention to the army of skeletons in the Leader of the Opposition's ministerial closet. Each and every passing review of the leader's time as minister has a litany of instances of incompetence at best. Those opposite moving a motion predicated on ministerial responsibility is a bit rich when they are led by the member for Dickson. I was waiting patiently for those opposite to extend their outrage to their leader after it was discovered that their leader granted a visa to a man who would go on to commit violence in the Australian community, one who was known at the time to have prior criminal convictions too. I can imagine the Leader of the Opposition having a range of options going through his head when he was making the decision to grant that ill-fated visa. He probably thought the man's CV was good enough to be awarded a contract with his department for his troubles, a department which was discovered to be doing business under his watch with companies whose directors were involved in everything from bribery and money-laundering through to avoiding US imposed sanctions of Iran. These were decisions that did not just make Australians less safe; these were decisions that undermined our allies and the system of rules based order that we aim to protect and defend. None of the many examples that have been unearthed about the time of the member for Dickson frankly surprised this side of the chamber in the slightest. And why should they have?

I remember those opposite, led by the member for Wannon and the Leader of the Opposition, loudly criticising not just the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs but the Minister for Home Affairs, and the Attorney-General for good measure. They must have been some truly diabolic acts indeed to have provoked such an aggrieved reaction, not just in this place but outside of it, and in the media too. These ministers, as ministers of the Crown, were guilty of following an order handed down by the High Court of Australia.

I remember many on that side of the chamber frothing at the mouth as they joined in the chorus, led by the member for Dixon, and shouted about the sanctity of our Constitution, at times affectionately calling it our rule book. But when it is convenient and suitable, he expects ministers to defy the High Court and the rule of law itself. If that is the way he expects a minister to behave, I can only wonder what future reviews might uncover from the Leader of the Opposition's days as a senior cabinet minister under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments and member of the National Security Committee of cabinet.

There can simply be no rational response to those opposite when they try to justify their indifference towards the very bedrock that underpins the rules and principles that lie at the heart of our system of constitutional government as being optional. If the member for Wannon wishes to come into the chamber next Tuesday after question time to talk about which side in this place can better protect our nation or to talk about ministerial responsibility and accountability, he's certainly welcome to do so, but I urge those sitting behind the member for Wannon to wake up from their trancelike state of cognitive dissonance and drag themselves back from the ledge of attempting to use national security as something that is liable to partisan pointscoring. I'm sure all of us would like to think that the member for Wannon is better than that. This view might even be shared by the member himself.

I would actively encourage the member for Wannon to take the words of former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss to heart, especially when she remarked that the member for Wannon has to show that he can play at a higher level. Today's performance, much like his performance during the previous Tuesday's MPI, proves that there's always a chance he will reach that level one day perhaps. It certainly won't be today. It may potentially be when a certain location freezes over—matching the member for Wannon's glacial pace.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this discussion has now concluded.