Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Hansard source

The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 includes a number of minor amendments to the Migration Act, the Customs Act and the passenger movement charge and would have been a fairly non-controversial bill, but, as I understand it, there is going to be a proposal in the committee stage of this bill, by a Greens senator, to link measures from members of the House of Representatives crossbench to this bill. As a consequence, there may well be further amendments moved by the Labor Party, given the change in circumstances. What might well have been a fairly routine—and, I would have thought, rudimentary—measure is now becoming a little bit more complicated. As a consequence, there will need to be time for the clerks to be able to prepare these amendments.

We've only just discovered that this measure is being treated in this way. I had been at other meetings and only walked back into my office very recently. I'm not certain if the government is aware of these changes. That was certainly the intent, as I understand it. It will be confirmed, presumably, when others get up to speak. But that's clearly the information that I've been given. As a consequence, let me just deal with these matters as they are at the moment. It will be necessary to put additional speakers on the list to provide time for the clerks to actually prepare the Labor Party's amendments to this bill, given the changed circumstances. I understand now that it's actually the case that it is being proceeded with. I look forward to clarification on that matter.

This bill seeks to clarify when a noncitizen is in the migration zone, and it ensures a bar on applying for further visas remains in place if the process of removal is interrupted. It allows the department to provide information to visa applicants via their online ImmiAccount. It also seeks to reduce the risk of breaching the Constitution where refunds are mistakenly made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and it establishes an ability to recover merchant fees for services similar to those the department recovers from other statutory portfolio charges and fees and various other duties.

So Labor is supporting the thrust of the bill, although there will now be further amendments—I think I've got that confirmed—not just from the Greens but from the Labor Party. The amendments will go way beyond these minor matters that are being considered in this bill to matters relating to the removal of people from Nauru, as I understand it.

This bill, as I say, should have been dealt with in non-contro, and the government may well rue the opportunity that they have missed in not dealing with it in that way. As I say, if it had been put forward in that manner, it would have been dealt with in a rather speedy fashion. This is, nonetheless, an opportunity for me to record Labor's deep concern at the way in which this portfolio has been handled. There has been, in our judgement, a very high level of incompetence. This Minister for Home Affairs, it should be remembered, is under a cloud, insofar as his eligibility remains in doubt given the constitutional questions that have been raised in other matters. Those matters should, properly, be referred to the High Court. Minister Dutton, in our judgement, has been a very poor minister in his management of immigration issues. His failure to negotiate third-country resettlement of refugees on Nauru and Manus highlights the haphazard management of this department, and it is, I think, amongst the more serious of the many failures of his administration.

This government's tick-and-flick approach to the management of immigration matters can be highlighted in a few instances, including the way in which frontline immigration and border protection staff have been in a pay dispute. That raises really basic questions about the way in which staff are treated within the immigration department. There has been a pay dispute now for four years! You would have thought that, after four years, you could have sorted out the department EB. I find it remarkable that that dispute has been going on for so long.

Of course, the Australian National Audit Office has released scathing reports into the systemic failures within the department—including the $1.1 billion question of payments to contractors between September 2012 and April 2016 which were approved by departmental officers who didn't have the appropriate authorisation. You'll say to me, of course, that that was partly under the Labor government as well. I acknowledge that, but the fact remains that these have been brought to light now, and the government has no apparent recourse on those matters. There have been occasions where there's no departmental record of who was actually authorised to make the payments. That's a serious matter. The National Audit Office has made some quite insightful observations about the failures within the department in that regard.

Of course, there has also been the admission from the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection around cybersecurity questions, which, it would appear, remain unresolved as well—something that the department, you would have thought, would have been able to deal with more effectively than we've seen. There has been a 12-month delay in the delivery of fast-response boats to the Border Force in Cairns to protect Australia from illegal fishing, people-smuggling and other transnational crime. I don't think we've heard anything yet about the collisions on the reef in regard to those boats. There remain outstanding questions there. There are the botched changes to the skilled migration visa program that have sent shockwaves through business, industry and the Australian community—and, of course, we shouldn't forget the time the immigration department locked up Australian citizens in onshore immigration detention. These are extraordinary records.

This is a government that has, unfortunately, chosen to use immigration in a highly divisive way. In fact it sought to use it as a form of race-baiting in the recent Victorian election, a tactic which, thankfully, failed so dismally, particularly in a state which has such a proud record in regard to multiculturalism. We saw that the minister himself sought to use some extraordinary attacks on various ethnic groups, claiming that Victorians were frightened to go out at night, frightened to go out and use restaurants in Melbourne, in a blatant attempt to wind up ethnic stereotyping to a new form of racial profiling, which you would have thought there'd be no place for in a country like Australia. But there's no depth to which this government won't sink, when it tries to wind up xenophobia in a desperate attempt to win support. And I repeat: it's so pleasing to see that the Australian people—particularly as demonstrated in Victoria—have so thoroughly rejected that style of politics. We've seen this minister mishandle his portfolio in such a manner that I think it's now become a symbol of the shambles that is very much emblematic of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government.

You would have thought that migration and immigration more generally would be a real strength for this country, given how important these issues have been for the welfare and extraordinary prosperity that this nation has enjoyed. Over seven million people have come to this country since the 1950s. There is now an overwhelming body of opinion that highlights the fact that our prosperity can very much be traced back to that migration program. The extraordinarily rich diversity of our people has been an important part of our capacity to engage with the world and, I think, an important part of the way in which we can actually distinguish ourselves from so many other parts of the globe in the way in which we're able to get on so well together in this country. But you wouldn't get that impression from the way in which this government seeks to stigmatise, isolate and attempt to divide, as I say, in a most unbecoming manner. This is a government that has failed a fundamental test of a civilised political system in the way in which it's treated our migration program. It's profoundly disappointing to see that.

It's a shame to have to say this, but Mr Dutton also performed pretty poorly when he was health minister. I can recall circumstances when there was a poll conducted by the Australian Doctor magazine which declared him 'the worst health minister in living memory'. So he's got form. He's got form when it comes to the style of politics. I think he regards it as a successful model in some parts of the population. The overwhelming sense, though, is that the Australian people don't buy it. They do want to see a country of migration that acknowledges the breadth of talent, the extraordinary diversity and the amazing contribution that people have made throughout our history.

To me, it's a shame that there's the desperate attempt to play the terrible dog-whistle type of politics. It might play well in some sections of the Liberal Party; I just don't think it plays particularly well in the public at large. I'm disappointed that those attempts continue to be made, but I am absolutely encouraged by the way in which the Australian people have turned their backs on this extraordinarily offensive style of trying to promote division in this country. It's really quite interesting. I noticed that, in the last state election in Victoria, even the Liberal Party leadership in Victoria rejected the crass attempts that were being made to inject those sorts of xenophobic elements into public debate. The Prime Minister, in the last week of the Victorian election campaign, sought to make issues around immigration. It was the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria at the time, Mr Guy, who said, 'No, we don't share that view, because in my state—which is now the fastest-growing state in the Commonwealth; Melbourne will be the largest city in the Commonwealth of Australia and enjoys extraordinarily good multicultural relations—there is a view that, while there are obviously issues that need to be contended in terms of questions about economic growth and there are clearly challenges that need to be met, the answer is not to blame our migration policies.' It was actually acknowledged that governments have responsibilities. Governments have responsibilities to plan. Governments have responsibilities to actually deal with the fundamental questions about resource allocation. Governments have responsibilities to ensure that people, when they come to this country, have the resources necessary to be able to adapt well to the new environment. But, above all, when it comes to basic infrastructure questions, and if there are real strains as a result of significant population growth, the answer is not to blame the migration policies or the migrants; it's to look at the failure of governments, over a long period of time, to develop the necessary infrastructure that you need to sustain the schools, the hospitals and the transport systems, and to ensure that there are jobs and industry development policies. In the past, we've leant heavily on our migrants to develop the economic prosperity of the nation and to take on the jobs that, quite often, many Australians won't take on.

So it's a double-edged sword, isn't it, when it comes to those questions? But, when you think there's an opportunity to win a few of the redneck votes, particularly from shock jocks, then it is a government that does not mind resorting to the politics of xenophobia and fear. Of course, what we saw in Victoria is that the politics of hope is able to succeed over the top of such extraordinary behaviour. What plays well in the focus groups in the Liberal Party—which I think really talk to members of the Liberal Party—doesn't actually reside well with the general attitude of people, especially as I've experienced it in the state of Victoria. That's why you've seen communities in the east of Melbourne, for instance, which are traditionally very conservative—that is, they vote Liberal; they've voted that way for generations—turning to Labor. They reject the politics of fear; they reject the race-bait approach; they reject the xenophobia. They understand that, for a country like us to succeed, we have to be a sophisticated part of the modern world. That's the way it's been in this country throughout our history, I might add. We effectively double our population every 40 years, and governments have to be able to deal with that and think through the long-term implications in order to ensure that all our people are able to enjoy the prosperity that this nation is able to provide. Clearly, that's not the approach of the current government—and it's certainly not the approach of the current minister.

I'm particularly disappointed that the officers of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, who have a really proud history of serving this nation, have been treated in the way they have. The fact that they can't get their industrial agreement sorted out makes me think that they have been treated pretty poorly. I've also noticed the very high turnover of officers. A number of comments made by longstanding officers and people who are no longer in the department—Mr Rizvi, for instance—highlight the very sharp contrast in the approach taken to migration issues in this country and the cultural change that has occurred as a result of the directions of this government. This country has a very fine international reputation in terms of its migration policies, and enormous support has been experienced by the Australian people for those migration policies.

A great deal of media attention concentrates on the question of people who are seeking refugee status. The overwhelming bulk of people who come to this country, 190,000-odd—or the 160,000 that this government now seeks—come here in an orderly manner and are welcomed in this country. They are welcomed and have been welcomed for generations. It reflects the enormous success of the approach that this country has had towards not only a mass migration program but also multiculturalism. That's a process which the Australian Labor Party is very proud of and which we ought to be very proud of as Australians.

I think this is a bill where, unfortunately, we'll see some other issues raised. We will obviously have to deal with them, which will provide an opportunity to make a few points more broadly about the great benefits of our migration program, even if it's set against the context of an appalling record by this government and this minister in trying to trash that reputation both domestically and internationally. This bill should've been dealt with as non-controversial legislation, and perhaps these questions would then have been dealt with in a much speedier manner—but that's a matter for the government. (Time expired)