Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on steps the government is taking to ensure that our borders are secure, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to border protection which could put Australians at risk?

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know those opposite destroyed our border security with tragic humanitarian consequences. We know that we fixed it. We're the ones that fixed it. We got the 2,000 kids out of detention. We stopped the boats. We saved Australian taxpayers billions of dollars, and now they want to come along and trash it again. On Tuesday they rushed through this parliament laws which will unravel offshore processing which is so critical to our border security.

Under this process, as the Prime Minister said, any two doctors anywhere in Australia who have never been to Manus Island or Nauru can start a process to bring people to Australia. Two doctors from Dapto can effectively overrule doctors who are actually on Manus Island and Nauru. If the minister doesn't agree with that it goes to a medical panel, and that panel can overrule the minister on any grounds, save the very narrow grounds under Labor's amendment (14).

What that means is, in short order, a very large number of people will be transferred to Australia from Manus Island and Nauru. That necessitates the reopening of Christmas island at a cost to taxpayers that we estimate at greater than $1 billion. That is what the Labor Party have done. They say they put in safeguards about the people who are transferred, and that's why I draw your attention again to amendment (14) that defines the people who can come to Australia under Labor's amendment.

It's very narrow. There's no character test outside of the very narrow criminal test of 12 months conviction or more, so a backpacker from Norway has to pass the substantive character test under Australian law, but people coming from Manus Island or Nauru don't. How can that be fair or appropriate? Why should someone who's coming to be a skilled worker in the goldfields of Western Australia have to pass a much higher character test than someone who's coming from Manus or Nauru?

Also, why on earth should someone who's coming from Manus or Nauru not have to at least assist the government in verifying their identity? If someone is not willing to assist the government in verifying their identity, that raises very serious character concerns. They can be dealt with under the Migration Act generally, but they cannot be dealt with under Labor's amendment (14). It is a disgraceful amendment. It puts Australia's border security at great risk.