Extract from the CURRENT HOUSE HANSARD
Database
Date: 18 November 1997 (21:22)
Page: 10614
MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHARACTER AND CONDUCT) BILL 1997
Second Reading
Ms HANSON (Oxley) (9.28 p.m.) For too long Australian taxpayers have borne the cost and embarrassment of assessing the character of people who are simply criminals. It is well past time for the government to speed up and streamline procedures to refuse entry to persons of bad character and to deport all criminals who are not Australian citizens. The Australian people are suffering terribly from the mismanagement of past and present governments and are tired of the intolerable waste of public money on foreign miscreants and parasites who, in many cases, receive better clothing, food, housing and legal aid than the law abiding taxpayers footing the bills.
As the following examples demonstrate, the good nature and generosity of the Australian people have been shamelessly exploited by criminals and the legal vultures whose profiteering makes a mockery of our immigration and legal system. Australian taxpayers recently funded an action by a convicted sex offender to win the right to stay in Australia permanently on the grounds that he was a person of good character.
Mr Le Geng Jia, a Chinese national, was sentenced in February 1995 to 6 1/2 years gaol for sexual penetration without consent, withholding a person's liberty, and threatening to assault and kill. Mr Le Geng Jia appealed the sentence, but the Western Australian court of criminal appeal upheld the sentence, describing it as `lenient'. When Mr Le Geng Jia was refused residency on the basis of his criminal record, he went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Could any Australian honestly believe that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal not only found in his favour and granted him permanent resident status but also claimed he was of good character? A convicted and gaoled sex offender of good character! By what criteria do the lunatics at the AAT make that assessment?
I must applaud the actions of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, who fairly quickly moved in and overturned the stupidity of the AAT ruling. Mr Le Geng Jia has now taken the minister's cancellation to the Federal Court and, thanks to the Western Australian Legal Aid Commission, is spending taxpayers' money in his bid to still call Australia home.
This animal, who could only be vaguely referred to as a human, not only had the gall to claim to be of good character but, while enjoying the relative luxury of an Australian gaol, has had the misplaced funding of legal aid right from the very start. Australian citizens, particularly in Western Australia, must wonder why they cannot access legal aid as easily as imported rubbish like Le Geng Jia. Under One Nation's policy this visitor, who defiled his invitation to study in this country, would have been immediately deported under treaty to serve his sentence in his own country and his record stamped `Never to return'.
Currently, a convicted Canadian murderer is trying to immigrate to Australia after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturned a federal government decision to ban him because of his serious criminal history. Once again, I must question the dubious decisions of the AAT, which consistently proves to be made up of a bunch of incompetent dunderheads.
In 1986, Mr David Grandlouis received a 10 year prison term for slitting a man's throat in a fight over drugs. After being paroled he was returned to prison following a car chase with police. Following this further assault on decent Australians by the never vigilant Administrative Appeals Tribunal, we will all be left wondering whether this two time loser will make his third attack on an unsuspecting Australian public at some stage in the future. Surely, the only people to benefit from admitting David Grandlouis to Australia are in fact the people of Canada who, I am sure, have plenty of other killers they will be happily sending our way.
Chinese immigrant Duncan Lam is reportedly Australia's largest heroin importer and a Vietnamese refugee Duong Van Is is believed by the police to be Australia's largest heroin distributor. The police further report about 90 per cent of Australia's heroin importations are conducted by Chinese drug gangs. Are we expected to believe these Asian gangsters came to Australia as decent, honest, law abiding human beings who somehow just fell into a life of crime and then managed to climb to the top of their heinous profession on the backs of their young Australian victims? Are we seriously expected to believe these purveyors of depravity and despair were not criminals before coming to Australia? How on earth did these people get into our country in the first place? Let's face it, low lives like these have slipped through the net, and it has to stop.
Under the proposed legislation the minister can revoke or refuse a visa on character grounds, but this decision can be overridden if the person applies for a protection visa in accordance with the United Nations refugee convention. Once again, we see how the power of the United Nations has the potential to endanger the Australian population, in this case by allowing the possibility of international gangsters to fight their way into Australia under the guise of refugee status. Australians, through the government and the minister, should have the sovereign right to determine the type of person and the number of people we let into Australia, not the United Nations or any other international body.
With the time restriction of 42 days for the AAT appeals being introduced by this proposed legislation and other options to prolong stay in Australia being cut off, it is probable that even more people will lodge claims for protection visas. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does not keep formal records. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does not keep formal records which allow the linking of refusal of visas on character grounds with the later application for a protection visa. Citizenship status is also no longer public information.
The Australian people have had enough. Under One Nation's policies you would not be eligible for Australian citizenship until you had been a permanent resident for five years. Committing any offence bringing about a sentence of more than 12 months would result in immediate deportation under our international criminal treaty agreement. Further to this, we would investigate the means to revoke citizenship in the case of those who commit serious crimes such as rape, murder, drug trafficking and paedophilia, with the criminal assets to be sold to defray costs and compensate victims. In no case would legal aid be granted to anyone other than Australian citizens. This bill is a start but, as with much of this government's legislation, it does not even come close to satisfying the needs of the Australian people.