Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight, albeit for a shortened period of time, to support the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006. Australia has the world’s most comprehensive entry system, basing its success on a multilayered approach. Our government takes the safety of this country and its citizens very seriously. We have funded major expansions in new technology used by Customs and the Australian Federal Police to increase border protection measures. Funding has also been put towards more efficient passenger processing and terrorism and serious crime detection and prevention.

We have taken action to shield the people of Australia from developing criminal trends such as identity fraud, the manufacture of synthetic illicit drugs and money laundering. We have developed one of the world’s toughest aviation security systems to protect Australians and overseas travellers. One example is the universal visa system for all noncitizens entering Australia, including transiting passengers. Another is the system of visa verification by airlines prior to a flight’s departure to Australia.

At this point, I think it is important to remind the House of the opposition’s track record on border security—it is nothing to be proud of. During their time in office, Labor’s bad economic management meant that the funding needs of our law enforcement agencies were unfulfilled, leaving Australia a soft target for transnational criminal syndicates and organised crime. At a time when federal law enforcement and border protection should have been boosted, Labor cut staff numbers in Customs by more than 1,000 personnel between 1990-91 and 1994-95.

This move seriously undermined the ability of Customs to do its vital work in protecting our borders. There were quarantine breaches, and exotic diseases came to Australia. The worst example of Labor’s border security policy—or lack of one—is from August 2001, when the Border Protection Bill 2001 was introduced. Initially, Labor supported it, saying:

... this country and this parliament do not need a carping opposition; what they actually need is an opposition that understands the difficult circumstances in which the government finds itself ...

Then, a few hours later, the former leader, Mr Beazley, announced the opposition would not support the Border Protection Bill.

I realise I am giving the House a history lesson, but border security must be treated as the important issue that it is. Protecting this country and its people from unauthorised arrivals and deterring would-be people smugglers for the sake of their victims are too important to play politics with. I am proud of the work that this government has done and will continue to do to keep Australia safe. I know it is important to the Australian people, because my constituents have voiced their views on numerous occasions about what we are doing to protect our borders, and they are extremely positive with their support.

The Australian government’s tough stance on border security is benefiting the federal electorate of Kalgoorlie in two specific ways. The first is the hard line we have taken on the issue of illegal fishing incursions off the north coast. This has been a significant problem to the communities along the northern coastline in my electorate, in addition to the financial impact on the commercial fishing industry. In last year’s budget $388.9 million was allocated to combat illegal foreign fishing in northern Australian waters. That new funding brought the Australian government’s total commitment to fighting illegal fishing to more than half a billion dollars.

I had been pushing for that funding, explaining to the minister and my colleagues how detrimental illegal fishing is to our northern waters and the communities that rely on fishing. The funding has been put towards improved detection and surveillance. Money has been used to upgrade the processing facility in Broome and for disposal of illegal boats, in addition to our policy of destruction of vessels at sea. Civilian charter vessels have been funded to tow apprehended illegal foreign fishing vessels to shore in the case of vessels unsuited to sinking at sea. Local Indigenous groups have been engaged to help monitor the coastline and any landings of illegal fishers. There is increased officer training and equipment money to address the risks associated with boarding foreign fishing vessels.

On top of the funding, the Australian government has been working with Indonesia to discourage illegal fishing at its source. Additional officers from Customs, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have been working with their Indonesian counterparts to discourage the fishermen from setting out for Australian waters in the first place.

An expanded border protection command unit controls and coordinates all activities for civil maritime security. There were 40 per cent fewer sightings of illegal fisherman in 2006 compared to 2005, even though we funded an increase in surveillance flights. For the first two months of this year, sightings were down by 68 per cent compared to the first two months in 2006. Those figures are supported by those on the ground, by the two leading fishing groups. Firstly, Rob Lowden, chair of the Northern Shark Industry Association, wrote to the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, the Hon. Senator Abetz, on 16 November 2006 saying:

Our association would like to thank the Minister and the Howard Government for allocating the resources to tackle the Indonesian poaching problem in our northern waters. Our members have advised that they have not seen any Indonesian fishermen over the last two months. This is great news.

In an interview with the ABC on 26 February this year, the chairman of the Kimberley Professional Fishermen’s Association, Bob Masters, said that the government’s strategy appears to be working. He said:

I wouldn’t say it’s all sorted. I would say we’re definitely going in the right direction, it will be all sorted when we don’t have any incursions into our waters or any theft of our fish resources.

We will continue working on this problem until it is solved and we will continue to strengthen Australia’s borders to keep our country secure.

The second direct effect on the electorate of Kalgoorlie is the letting of the Port Hedland detention centre. The centre has been mothballed since 2004; it has been on standby in case of illegal arrivals and the need to accommodate them in a secure environment. Because we have been so successful in reducing the arrival of unauthorised boat people, with the Howard government’s strong and successful border policy, the centre is not required in the immediate future for detainees. I am very pleased to tell the House that it will now be let as temporary accommodation for workers in the Hedland area.

The reason for this is that the state Labor government in Western Australia has failed to meet its responsibility to provide low-cost housing for the people of the Pilbara. There is a severe shortage of available accommodation and rents are out of control, with prices rivalling those in Sydney. The centre can house up to 400 single people and will make a considerable difference to the accommodation crisis in the area.

I have spoken to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship about the issue over a long period, and in February he ordered an urgent review of the facility. That review has now been completed and the report concluded that there is no immediate need for the centre to remain available for illegal immigrants because we have being doing the job and presenting a tough barrier to those would-be people smugglers. I thank the minister for making this decision, as the housing situation in Hedland is desperate.

These are both excellent examples of how this government’s border security policy is working, but more can be done. The Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006 proposes to amend the Migration Act 1958 by adding two measures which will further strengthen Australia’s borders. The first is a declaration ceasing a special purpose visa and the second is the introduction of an automated border processing strategy. The special purpose visas allow for specified persons, or members of specified classes, to be taken to hold a temporary visa. For example, special purpose visas apply to crew members of non-military ships, airline crew, government guests and participants of events such as the Commonwealth Games.

The minister can cease a special purpose visa by making a declaration under section (33)(9) of the Migration Act that it is undesirable that the person, or a class of persons, travel to, or remain in, Australia. Most commonly, this power is used when a foreign sea crew member may be considered at risk of deserting a vessel in Australia or where there is a character, national security or health concern about the person.

Where such a declaration is made, the current provisions of the Migration Act state that the special purpose visa remains in effect until the end of that day on which the declaration is made. This is an anomaly in the visa regime; no other type of visa remains in effect until the end of the day on which it is ceased. As a consequence, the person cannot be lawfully detained until the end of that day, even if that person poses some threat to the Australian community. This is of particular concern where, for example, a master of a vessel has reported a crew desertion.

In such circumstances, Department of Immigration and Citizenship officers would usually cease that person’s special purpose visa and commence processes to locate the person. However, if the person is found on the day their special purpose visa is ceased, the officer cannot detain the person until midnight of that day—a ludicrous situation. The Australian Government Solicitor has advised that the common-law principles of natural justice should be applied in relation to declarations made to cease a special purpose visa.

The second amendment relates to the introduction of an automated border processing system. Immigration clearance is the process that regulates the entry of people into Australia. It ensures that those persons who enter have authority to do so, are who they claim to be and that they provide other information if required to do so.

There are new technologies available which will retain the quality of border control but automate systems to make the process quicker and easier. At present, the immigration clearance process at the border is performed manually. It is impossible to cut the manual process time any further without comprising the system’s integrity. Border agencies had to look at other alternatives, and the automated system called SmartGate is one of the strategies to be used in the medium to long term. SmartGate is the process by which the insertion of a chip within the passport document held by a passenger will allow the passenger to process themselves electronically, without the presence of an immigration officer. The detail contained within the chip will reveal all.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context