Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Just to clarify the paperwork: I've got circulated (1) to (10). You moved (1) to (9). So, you're moving the compensation scheme separately. Is that correct? Yes? Fine.

I'll be very brief. I've responded, I think, to all the arguments you put with previous amendments. I'll make two points. Just to confirm, at the end of the crossbench briefing, we were very clear that we were moving the bill in all stages through the House yesterday. That actually hasn't happened, because here we are this morning, with the opportunity to put amendments, to debate amendments and to comment on the bill. I maintain the point. Having said that we were moving it through the House, people were not in the chamber yesterday, with the exception of the member for Clark, who did not seek the call. But here we are, talking about the bill.

I'll respond to one point very briefly. You made a number of colourful remarks about government members and multicultural communities. I represent the most multicultural part of Australia, actually, the City of Greater Dandenong. I'll be very, very clear: I am absolutely confident that people in my community and people in the Attorney-General's community and people in the member for Holt's community and the member for Parramatta's community will, when we sit down and explain the practical consequences of this bill, overwhelmingly support it. The proposition that's being put, behind the nice, well-meaning sentiment and words from the crossbench amendments, is that a random group of people from a given country who happen to have a temporary visa to Australia at this point in time—granted, before major events changed or conflicts broke out—and who might be coming for business, tourism or a whole range of other temporary reasons and may have no familial connection to Australia whatsoever somehow get privileged in the humanitarian program and given the precious right to seek asylum onshore in Australia over people in my community and government members' communities who've been waiting one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years trying to save their families.

So I'm just not going to take the moral superiority, frankly, from people who overwhelmingly represent electorates with good Australians in them but are overwhelmingly not electorates where humanitarian migrants settle, whose community services don't get overwhelmed if we accept the kinds of propositions you're putting forward. I'm absolutely confident—and I'm just responding to the point you made in the debate—that the people I represent and that government members represent would support this legislation when they understand the practical consequences for their families and an orderly humanitarian migration program where our country is generous and we reserve the right to offer protection to the most vulnerable people out of an overwhelming case load with the strongest connection to Australia.

See this speech in context