Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The conflict in Iran has inspired the government to bring forward this legislation. When it comes to that conflict, what we have seen in Australia is a very high degree of bipartisanship. In backing the actions of the United States and Israel we have seen bipartisan support. In the deployment of ADF assets and resources, we have seen bipartisan support. When it comes to the issuing of humanitarian visas for members of the Iranian women's football team, we have seen bipartisan support. In the amendments to the migration laws of this country, being put forward today by virtue of this legislation, again, we see bipartisan support.

With that said, the legislation before the House, while inspired by the conflict in Iran, is not contained and relevant only to the conflict in Iran. Thus, let me make a few broad comments about immigration policy and then ask the minister at the table some questions. Firstly, when it comes to Australia's immigration system, you see an enormous difference between the coalition's and Labor's approach. Under this government we have seen, unfortunately, the numbers of people coming to Australia being too high, the standards too low and a failure to shut the door to people who do not share Australian values. It's also conspicuous that legislation of this sort was not brought forward at an earlier date in response to another conflict, again in the Middle East—that is, of Gaza following the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023.

This leads me to these questions. One, at Senate estimates last month, officials confirmed that 6,957 visa grants were made to Palestinian nationals between November 2023 and November 2025. Given that volume of visa grants during a period of international conflict, can the government explain why it did not seek legislative powers of the kind contained in this bill earlier?

Two, given the government now believes it requires a mechanism to suspend the effect of offshore visas during international crises, why was such a mechanism not pursued when thousands of visas were being granted during the Gaza conflict?

Three, officials also confirmed that more than 2,300 Palestinian visa holders were present in Australia at various points in 2025, including 2,306 at the end of November. Did the government conduct any risk assessment regarding visa compliance outcomes for that cohort?

Four, did the department advise the government at any stage that additional powers, such as those now proposed in this bill, might be required to manage the migration risks arising from that conflict?

Five, evidence from estimates also confirmed that 26 visas granted to Palestinian nationals were cancelled during the same period, with 18 cancellations involving an element of national security concern, although some were later revoked. Can the government explain how those cases were identified and managed?

Six, given it is likely that these laws, if introduced earlier, may have prevented thousands of Gazans entering Australia over the last 2½ years, what action is the government taking where these Gazans have either sought to overstay their visas or attempted to change their visa arrangements?

Seven, can the government confirm whether the visa integrity risks it now seeks to mitigate by way of this bill were risks to which Australia has been exposed since the September 7 October 2023, with the arrival of thousands of Gazans?

Eight, how would the powers contained in this bill have provided additional safeguards in managing risks that the large influx of people from Gaza over recent years may have given rise to?

Again, the coalition is supporting the government in the passage of this legislation through the House. However, this legislation does give rise to at least those eight questions, on which I look forward to hearing the minister's response.

See this speech in context