David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

You can tell which countries are better and which are worse. People vote with their feet. People are voting with their feet to come to Australia. They're also voting with their feet to go to other functional liberal democracies around the world. By this measure, Australia is better than most, and so are Singapore, Germany and the United States. In contrast, people are voting with their feet to leave countries like China and Venezuela. This tells us something. It tells us we shouldn't emulate China, with its strongman leader for life, it's Big Brother nanny state, its pervasive surveillance, its government intervention and manipulation of industry and trade, its massive diversion of resources into the military and police, and its mountains of debt. We shouldn't emulate Venezuela, where guns are banned but violent crime is rife and where socialism means nearly everything is subsidised. Nearly everything, from milk to medicines, is subject to price controls, but the shop shelves are empty, with what resources that remain being funnelled to those connected to the Maduro regime. In case anyone thinks this is irrelevant to us, remember that, right now, in Australia, there are calls to regulate the price of milk and that we already have regulated prices of medicines. In Australia, the idea of a no-nonsense, tough-talking leader is ever popular, as are calls to boost police numbers, ban guns, extend the nanny state, protect industry and not worry about budget deficits.

Australia is a country built on immigrants, and a prosperous and secure future depends on that continuing. We need people to continue voting with their feet and choosing Australia. But not all immigrants are equal in terms of their value to the country. Some who seek to migrate to Australia are looking for a handout from the Australian taxpayer. We don't want them and we shouldn't allow them. Most are looking for a land where you can go about your business, keep most of the fruits of your labour and buy what you want and need, and, of course, where the ruling politicians, the courts and police don't threaten to take you from your family. Such migrants are the kind Australia has welcomed for 200 years. How can we ensure we attract more of the kinds of migrants we want and as few as possible of the kind we don't want? One way would be to remove access to welfare until they become citizens. With no welfare available, those contemplating voting with their feet to come to Australia would only do so if they knew they could make a go of it. Those who felt they weren't up to it or expected to rely on welfare before too long would have second thoughts. Of course, that would not apply to those on humanitarian visas. Australia accepts more of those per capita that any other country, except Canada, but their numbers are still tiny in comparison to our total migration numbers. It is right that we provide a refuge for people fleeing persecution.

Another way to establish an incentive to attract the right people would be created by charging migrants a high price for a permanent resident's visa. With no welfare available if they can't work, the migrants who then continue to come to Australia would be topnotch. If any of them struck some bad luck and we wanted to be generous in individual cases, we would, first of all, expect their family or employer to take care of them, but, even after that, we could justify helping an occasional individual because they have paid the high fee. It would be abundantly clear to all but the looniest amongst us that these are new Australians we can be proud of, including some who would probably improve our soccer and cricket teams. Obviously, we need to maintain character, criminal and health tests on all potential migrants. If we detect intolerant medieval attitudes, we should ban that migrant too. There should be no tolerance of intolerance.

Upholding such standards continues to make us attractive to those who vote with their feet. We can have a liberal democracy, a liberal society, with equality before the law and we can have democracy—but only if we are choosey about who we accept as migrants. Open borders—meaning we are not choosey about who we accept—risk allowing in those who hate our liberal society and who can then become a major voting bloc. To defend our liberal society, we must be able to name its enemies. One enemy is radical Islam. That perversion is intent on murdering infidels, apostates and, most of all, other Muslims who don't comply with their dictates. Another enemy is those who would seek to appease radical Islam. We must never bend to radical Islam, whether deciding to allow a synagogue to be built in our suburbs or deciding to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In the process of protecting us from radical Islam, we should be alert to the potential to chip away at what makes our liberal democracy. We have well-resourced agencies to intercept the communications of would-be terrorists, so the spectre of terrorism can't be wheeled out to justify intercepting and storing the communications of the majority of Australians who are not suspects and who never communicate with suspects. The communications of the vast majority of Australians are none of the government's business, they are none of ASIO's business, and they are definitely none of the business of the ATO or your local council. And we need to remember that government storage of our communications is an easy target for hackers, making us less safe.

Australia is great. Along with other liberal democracies around the world, people are voting with their feet to come here. They are drawn to a society built on trust, where your life, liberty and property are respected, where we leave people alone but where intolerance is not tolerated. Long may this continue.