Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The second reason is to keep Australians safe. We've heard an awful lot about that. We've gone through the number of murders, the number of rapes and the amount of family violence. The second reason is to keep Australians safe, and that is the ultimate obligation of any government.

The third reason is to support victims, such as rape victims and the family members of those who have been murdered. Any number of commendations for this bill have been given by people who made the simple statement that, if this bill had existed, their family member would not have been killed, raped or beaten.

The fourth reason—I will limit my presentation to that at this stage—is respect for citizenship. We have an extraordinarily welcoming country. We give citizenship, after a period of time, to anyone who comes here legally and we are very, very generous in it. But it's not a right. It is a privilege for people who are prepared to obey Australian laws. That is what the character test is all about: whether you are, in fact, willing to obey Australian laws. This is, I believe, illustrated most specifically by the figures.

A simple figure to begin with is that the Rudd-Gillard government only cancelled and refused a total of 1,128 visas on character grounds. We are very proud of the fact that, by contrast, after significant reforms in 2014, this government has already cancelled or refused visas to over 9,900 serious criminals. If people don't think that this was for serious crimes, then they really haven't looked at the detail of what is going on.

Let me just run through it once again for the benefit of Labor and the Greens. Of the 9,900 cancellations and refusals, 216 were for murder and 1,372 were for sexual offences, including 905 for child sex and child pornography offences. So whose interests are we looking after by claiming the right of these non-Australian, noncitizen criminals to stay in this country? Are we looking after the families of those who were murdered? Are we looking after the 905 who had committed child sex and child pornography offences, or the 467 who had committed rape and/or serious sexual offences against adults? This is absolutely appalling. This is an incorrect focus, not where the mind of this country should be. It is faux civil rights and faux humanity to say that these people have any right to stay in this country.

Four hundred and ninety-eight of the 9,900 had committed armed robbery. We are deeply concerned at the moment that, during the COVID-19 period, people have lost their income. We see time and time again not just the traumatic impact on individuals but the economic impact on individuals who have been subjected to armed robbery—nearly 500 cases amongst the 9,900 people who have had their visas refused or cancelled. There were 1,701 for drug offences There were 37 for kidnapping. There were 3,908 for other violent offences, including assault, grievous bodily harm, reckless injury, domestic violence, stalking, intimidation, use of a weapon and attempted murder. If they were Australian citizens, they would be treated differently, but they have elected not to be Australian citizens, regardless of how long they may have stayed in this country. They've elected not to become Australian citizens, and that's a decision that they have made, for the consequences of which they have to suffer.

In conclusion, I say that this is an amendment bill that is worth supporting. It should be supported, if for no other reason than for the victims of those who have been deported—for the victims of those who have had their visas and the great privilege of Australian citizenship removed from them.