Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. In terms of the specifics you're talking about, the ABF will of course investigate those specifics, and I wouldn't make any further comment in relation to that, on the government.

But, when it comes to our record, this is a government that has had a record that is the envy of those opposite when it comes to securing our borders. There's no doubt about that. We could go over the years and years of history to show that it is a coalition government that takes these issues seriously and it is those opposite who operate an open-borders approach—there's no doubt about that. When it comes to securing our borders or dealing with serious and organised crime, we've demonstrated our bona fides. We've seen in relation to Operation Ironside just this week that organised criminals are taking advantage, and we are doing everything we can to stop them. Serious crime is a major threat to our way of life, and that's what this legislation is about. It's about saying that those who are going to have unescorted access to secure areas will have to undergo these kinds of serious checks.

It's interesting that the Labor Party seek to delay this legislation, that they seek to filibuster, that they seek to talk about anything other than the actual legislation that is before the Senate. They haven't been able to explain why they don't believe we should be delivering these reforms. They'll point to all sorts of other things that they might like to improve that they didn't improve when they were in government eight years ago. Well, that's fine. Have that debate. But it's transparently clear that this is simply about them not wanting to bring this to a vote. They don't want to see it come to a vote because they don't want to be on the wrong side of this. So they need to now make the argument as to why they're going to vote against this—or are they not? Are they just going to draw it out and draw it out and then maybe eventually vote for it? Are they going to have a bet each way? That's what they seem to be doing here, because they're throwing up a lot of red herrings that aren't about what this legislation is actually about.

This legislation is actually about having proper security vetting for those who have unescorted access to these areas. We've explained the differences and we've explained the different checks through the detailed questions that were asked by Senator Sheldon. We can see what's going on. Thank you for the lectures. When it comes to border security, we will compare our record to yours any day of the week, absolutely any day of the week. You keep referring to the 25 million Australians listening. That's optimistic! But regardless of who is listening and how many are listening, any of them would know that this Liberal-National government has an enviable record on keeping our borders safe. Those opposite, when they were last in government, couldn't be trusted, and it was one of the reasons the Australian people got rid of them.