Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to support this important bill, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015, because it has been said in the many debates that we have had in this chamber about border protection and security—it has oft been repeated—that a nation that loses control of its borders loses control of its destiny. We are seeing the implications of some of these things—if I may say so—come to pass in parts of Europe where there are unprecedented numbers of people arriving without appropriate documentation and seeking to sneak into countries illegally in the hope of a better economic environment. No-one wants to see that happen in Australia. Even the opposition have come to that conclusion and are supporting tougher border protection measures. I believe that at the Labor Party conference a number of significant changes took place. They even support turning back the boats now where it is safe to do, as part of a policy conference. Whether or not it comes to pass that they actually do that and have the wherewithal to do it, I think it is truly significant that it is much more humane to stop illegal arrivals and prevent the deaths at sea than to encourage loose border protection policies.

We have a department, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, that is absolutely paramount in providing the security and integrity of our border protection services, not just in the northern end to prevent undocumented or illegal arrivals but in every airport to make sure that the people who are coming through the airport are who they say they are and that appropriate checks have been made—where Australia is protected or has a reduced vulnerability—for those who wish to do us harm, whether it be mischievously to commit crimes against individuals or, much broader, to wreak havoc on a much bigger scale. In the mindset of terrorists, getting into a country is the very first aspect of being able to commit some terrible, terrible crimes.

We always have this balance of keeping up with technology, chasing down the criminals and ensuring that we are in the best possible position not only to protect individual liberties—because that is a significant thing that I am sure some people have concerns about—but, more importantly, to protect the integrity of our border protection services. I would like to say thank you to our border protection officers. They do their job amazingly well. I know it is not all beer and skittles—if I may put it in that parlance. It is not an easy job; it is a very, very tough job. I had a circumstance myself going through Customs and Immigration where I had to declare that I had been swimming in a river. I had to go through the 'something to declare' operation because they were concerned about the integrity of our quarantine services. I cannot fault them in their conduct and how they approached the circumstances. It is safe to say, and I know you will be relieved, Mr Deputy President, that I was given the all clear and I did not have any biological issues attached to my person on that occasion.

In the end, we have to give them the equipment that they need. Part of the equipment that they need in order to protect us is biometric identifiers. I do not have any doubt that biometric identifiers are the way of the future. We see them in personal security systems and in corporate security systems, and I think we have to acknowledge the reality that they are the best method of identifying individuals and providing security. The types of people we do not want in this country are the crooks, the charlatans and the scammers, the terrorists, the people who have lied to get here or are covering up some malfeasance in their past, and the people who are seeking to breach our border protection services for whatever personal reasons they may have. I have this theory that if you are prepared to commit a crime to get into a country then you are probably prepared to commit a crime while you are in the country. I think it is important that we can identify those people who have tried to game the system or have tried to game the system in other countries. This is where what I think is called the five-nations cooperation is truly important. We do have a number of like-minded countries around the world that we seek to cooperate with in the interests of intelligence and in the interests of international security. I think that these biometric identifiers and checking against some of the errors that others have made in other countries are an important protection for Australia.

While I did not have the opportunity to participate in the committee, I do acknowledge some of the concerns that were raised by Senator Bilyk and Senator Lines. I have to say that. My understanding, and I would welcome clarification from the minister when she has the opportunity to answer questions in the committee stage, is that when checking biometrics—for example fingerprints, with mobile fingerprint scanners, which is only going to take 20, 30 or 40 seconds, so it is not a real inconvenience—the data is actually not retained.

So if I am fingerprinted, because I am a person of interest, my data is not retained; it is just compared with a database of known crooks, charlatans or people who would do us harm. If my fingerprints do not match those individuals, I am free to go about my business and the data is wiped. As someone who is actually a bit of a civil libertarian in many respects, I feel relatively comfortable with that. And I do not feel, as Senator Lines suggested, that there is any sense of shame attached to being pulled over by a Customs or Border Protection officer saying, 'Would you mind going through this scan?'

We in fact go through it every time we go through airport security. You run the gauntlet. A man or woman is there holding the bomb detector wand. I try to avoid them at all costs, because I find it kind of annoying really. Nonetheless, I do not feel that they are targeting me personally when they pull me over. It is just part of going about the normal security checks. I do not see much difference between being asked, 'Can you just put your fingers on this pad, Sir?' or opening your bag and allowing them to scan for traces of explosive devices. It is about security. So I do not share the concerns that Senator Lines has in that sense, because I do think that this is a way of updating our border security using biometric testing.

It also gives the department a great deal more flexibility. In some circumstances where visa applications, for example, are taking place in higher risk jurisdictions—I think the technical term may be 'identified high-risk cohorts'—they can use biometric identifiers to test the veracity of a visa applicant. They can also use it to test the veracity of people seeking to leave the country. You wonder about that sometimes, about why that is important. Well, there is the case of this Sharrouf character who left the country on someone else's passport and managed to go and fight with Islamic State and do all these terrible deeds because he was a person of interest in this country. And you know what? If he is a person of interest in this country, I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we do whatever is possible to prevent them from going to another country and wreaking havoc there. There is a school of thought, though, I will acknowledge, that we should just allow these people to go off and fight and die on the battlefield of Islamic State. I do not subscribe to that. I think they do a great deal more damage over there and we are better off monitoring our responsibilities here.

I understand the issue is going to be about minors. We have had some discussion about that, and Senator Lines once again raised the issue about fingerprinting minors and asked what subset of data we are testing them against, or whether we are using it to collect data. My understanding from conversations that I have had and from the minister's second reading speech and the information I have been provided is that we are not collecting the minor's data. When we are testing them in that sense we are comparing it with a known subset, so that we can identify the individual if they are a person of interest. So I do not fear that somehow we are maintaining a database of the biometric details of all Australians or other entrants into Australia. I know that there are many in the civil libertarian area who would reject that and be most concerned about it. But, as I said earlier, I have an in principle view that there should be some freedoms for individuals and that their privacy should not be overwhelmingly obstructed, and I do not think that this bill provides an overwhelming rejection of people's individual privacy.

I think the bill meets the balance between the requirements for privacy as well as our national security. I think most Australians would fall into this category and would not seriously object to undergoing perhaps a more stringent screening process when they are entering or leaving the country should they happen to match the description or some identifiers as being a person of interest. We live in a globalised world where technology and the ability to reproduce documents or perpetrate frauds of identity and to change facial features is extraordinary. It is unprecedented, and we need to make sure that we are keeping up with the latest technology in order to protect our borders.

I want to compliment the minister for his second reading speech. He made the point that recent terrorism related events in Australia and around the world serve to remind us all that the threat of a domestic terrorist attack remains very real. There are people in this country and people who seek to come to this country to do us enormous harm. There are people who seek to go out of this country to learn how to do us harm and then come back. We owe it to the Australian people, the citizens of this country, the law-abiding men and women of this country and the nature of our country—the wonderful freedom that we have in this country—to ensure that our country is safe not only for us today but also for the next generations. That means that we need to take measures like the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill. It means that we need to be cognisant that we have to be at the forefront of combatting terrorism, that we need to keep Australians safe and that we need to update our biometrics integrity. It is going to be a constant battle—a constant race, if you will—between those who will use technology against us and those of us who will seek to use technology to protect us. It is a very fine balance. You can always make the case that it is important for security concerns to override individual freedoms and liberties. I do not want us to get caught in that trap, and I am confident and I feel very comfortable that this bill does not do that, and hence it has my support.

Proceedings suspended from 18:30 to 19:30