BUSINESS
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Leader of the House) (12:17): Fortunately, the bill is not very long, so I've had a chance to be able to have a look at it. But I really hope, for his own sake, that the Leader of the Opposition hasn't read what he's tried to introduce.
You'll see why if you go through what this bill is that he's now wanting us to interrupt the business of the day to be able to focus on. Point 1 is the description of the people involved doesn't necessarily capture the cohort that has been debated publicly. Read the definition.
Read what's there. It doesn't actually capture that cohort. What it does capture is this: the fighters, for example, who came in under their watch—fighters who were clearly guilty of a terrorism offence.
We know that fighters did come in under their watch. Who are the people that this bill would criminalise? Because they were people who came back with Australian passports under the previous government after having gone off—not women and children, but people who went off—to hold guns on behalf of ISIS.
They're the ones who came in under the Abbott government, under the Turnbull government and under the Morrison government—fighters. This would criminalise the pilots of the commercial plane that flew them back. This would criminalise the baggage handlers.
Importantly, the main group wanting people to leave those camps has been our American allies. When they've made public requests to Australia—I know it's a long bow, so why is it in the act? Why is it in the bill?
If you think it's ridiculous, why are you trying to legislate for it? The Leader of the Opposition right now is wanting parliament to debate legislation that will not deal with the cohort that we've been talking about. If you look at what happened under their watch when he was a member of the cabinet of Australia, he was very quiet when fighters came back.
Did you ever complain about the fighters returning? Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is just going to pause.
Mr BURKE: The people who came back, having gone there to fight—did you oppose any of that? Mr Taylor interjecting— Mr BURKE: Then why didn't you apply? He says that's why the legislation was put in place.
If that's the case, why were fighters still returning under the Morrison government? Senator Paterson might say they weren't, but I can tell you that fighters returned under the Morrison government as well. In fact, one of the fighters who returned under the Morrison government— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order!
The minister will pause. There are far too many interjections. People are interjecting outside of their seat.
If you wish—hopefully, you don't wish—to interject, please return to your seat. It's highly disorderly. The people who aren't sitting in their seat, trust me: do not interject.
That includes the Chief Opposition Whip. We've got to have a debate here, not a yelling match. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, and he was given that courtesy.
We're just going to moderate this a little bit more, okay? Mr BURKE: Senator Paterson made the claim that no fighters returned under the Morrison government. Two fighters returned under the Morrison government.
One of them returned after Scott Morrison had sworn himself in as Minister for Home Affairs. During that time we had two home affairs ministers, and apparently neither of them knew that the fighters were returning. Neither of them knew.
That's what happened under their watch. But, at that time, there was not a peep from any of them—not a complaint, when fighters were returning under their watch. But, if this law had been in place while they were being quiet about it, it would have criminalised anyone who, in the ordinary course of their work, did something that was viewed as 'assisting'.
This would have criminalised anyone involved, such as our allies involved in trying to get people out of the camps, because it excuses someone if they're a Commonwealth officer but not if they're working as an ally for the United States. They're not excluded. So our allies would be criminalised by this.
Anyone working at an airport who in any way facilitated would be criminalised through this. Anybody who worked on the flights themselves—because there is nothing more direct in assisting someone's passage than in fact flying them back—would be criminalised under what would have to be one of the shoddiest pieces of legislation that anyone has tried to introduce to the parliament.
If anyone wondered what a silver foot in your mouth looks like, it looks like the legislation that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to introduce to the parliament right now. My suggestion for stage 1, when you decide to do a private member's bill when you're a leader of the opposition, is to pick something that you're passionate about. Secondly, pick something that you've read.
I'm not sure what is more frightening on this one, when the Leader of the Opposition is wanting to introduce legislation that does none of the things that he's publicly said he wants to do and all of the things he's claiming he doesn't want to do. I'm not sure it's a bigger problem if he's done that inadvertently or if he knew and he did it anyway. But, by the bewildered look on his face, I think it's a fair bet—and we can probably always err on this side—that the Leader of the Opposition didn't have a clue.
I think that's possibly where we're going to find the pattern of what we've already got: the person who came to office and knocked off their first woman leader on the basis that he could unify their party. On day one, two of his members crossed the floor in the Senate. That's the sort of unity he delivers on day one.
Then he comes in here on day two and introduces legislation that does none of the things that he says it would do—absolutely none of it—and instead criminalises a whole lot of people who I don't think anyone in their right mind would say should be falling foul of the criminal law. I don't think that people who work in the aviation industry, doing their ordinary jobs, should somehow find— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURKE: If you scoff at it, why did you put it in there?
Clearly, those opposite don't think this should be in the bill, yet they have introduced that legislation. I still want one of them, at some point, to explain why they have the view they have now. When it comes to someone exercising rights which you can't cancel, in terms of the automatic rights of an Australian citizen, why is it that they are furious about it now but were so silent when fighters were returning?
Why is it that, somehow, men who went there to kill don't trouble them? Why is it that, somehow, they have no problem with men coming back to Australia who went to join one of the most bloodthirsty organisations we've ever seen? What sort of compass is that?
It's to the point that they want to pretend it didn't happen. It's to the point that Senator Paterson denies that anyone came under the Morrison government. It's to the point that Scott Morrison denies that anyone came under his watch.
They didn't just come under his watch as Prime Minister; one of them came during the time that he had also sworn himself in as Minister for Home Affairs. What is in front of us here does not match the actual impact that any of them have said they want to have. What is in front of us here does not do any of the things that they have said they want to do.
What is in front of us here is clumsy legislation that doesn't do anything to stop people who you would not want in Australia but that does criminalise people who, from the reaction I hear, nobody thinks should be criminalised. Quite simply, there is a way to deal with it. If we all agree that the people I've described should not be criminalised—if we all agree that the aid workers shouldn't be criminalised, that the aviation workers shouldn't be criminalised and that our allies shouldn't be criminalised—there's a simple way to deal with it, and that's to vote no on this suspension motion.
The SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.