Mr SOMLYAY (4:38 PM) —I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 6) 2001 from what I believe to be a unique position in this House: as far as I know, I am the only person to be elected to this House who actually came to Australia as a refugee. My parents came to Australia as post World War II refugees from Hungary. They had two young children, my brother and me—he was four years old and I was two. They escaped from the communist regime in Hungary through the Austrian border and joined literally millions of people who were refugees from eastern Europe.

My very first view of the world was through a barbed wire fence at a refugee holding camp outside Naples, in Italy, where refugees from all over Europe sought safe haven. My parents had no idea where they would be sent or which country would accept them. In Europe in the immediate postwar years there were millions of refugees and Australia was not a well-known country or, for that matter, a desirable destination. My parents told me that their expectation was that they would be resettled somewhere in North or South America. After an eight-month wait, living in this Italian refugee holding camp, our turn for resettlement came and we were placed aboard a former troop carrier, the USS General Harry Taylor, to sail to Australia. I can remember as an infant sailing into Sydney Harbour and watching the Harbour Bridge over the top of the ship. We were transported to a migrant camp at Bathurst in New South Wales to join hundreds of other immigrants and refugees from Europe who were waiting to start a new life in Australia.

Our worldly belongings were in a wooden chest that came with us—memories of freedom in a previous life, culture, family and friends were all contained in that wooden chest. I have the unique experience, I think, in this House in that I did migrate to this country as a child refugee and, of course, we were then stateless people. I grew up as a new Australian in this nation against a background of parents grateful for the new life and freedom given to them by this country. Others in this House have a comprehension of refugees' rights from different viewpoints. They develop a view over the years, and I respect each one of those views. My views are drawn from personal experience.

Against this background, I want to say that I support this bill without reservation. My electorate supports this bill and the immigrants in my electorate support this bill. I thought this bill and the Border Protection Bill were such important pieces of legislation that I published details in a newsletter throughout my electorate last weekend. I published the minister's background notes on the bill and his second reading speech in full. I also published the Prime Minister's second reading speech on the Border Protection Bill so that the constituents in my electorate could see in detail what the Labor Party had voted against. Of course, the Democrats and the Greens voted against that bill as well. I published in my electorate what the media would not publish. This bill will signal to the world, and especially to people smugglers, that Australia is no longer a soft touch. This bill contains measures that will address attempts to misuse onshore protection processes. The bill ensures that the refugee convention provides appropriate protection for refugees, consistent with the international obligations that Australia assumed when becoming a party to the convention. It also minimises the misuse of Australia's protection process.

The bill basically will do eight things. Firstly, it will clarify and define certain refugee convention matters. Then it will extend the bar in section 48A of the act against further application for visa protection. This will make it clear that the section 48 bar applies to all protection visa applicants irrespective of whether they have sought the visa because of personal claims for refugee protection or as a family member of such a person. This will prevent members of the families pursuing claims for protection one after the other, dragging on resolution of their status for years. It will allow the minister in certain circumstances to draw a reasonable inference unfavourable to an unauthorised arrival or protection visa applicant if they fail to provide information on oath or affirmation or to produce documentary evidence of the applicant's identity, nationality or citizenship. This addresses growing concerns, particularly in relation to unauthorised arrivals, that individuals are disposing of identifying documentation and engaging in sophisticated research and schooling of claims in order to mislead Australian officials about their identity, nationality or real need for protection. It will provide that the minister shall not take into account the implications of actions taken in Australia by asylum seekers which are intended to create or strengthen their claims for protection. It will require the High Court and Federal Court not to publish the name of a person who is seeking or who has sought protection and is engaging in certain types of litigation relating to their status to remain in Australia.

The result of that will be to substantially reduce the potential for publication of court records and proceedings, which may create further protection claims for people in Australia or put their families and colleagues overseas at risk of harm. The proposed legislation will leave intact the capacity of the minister, or the person engaged in the litigation, to seek the confidential treatment of further identifying information. It will require the Administrative Appeals Tribunal not to publish any information which may identify persons. It will require that certain crimes listed in section 5 of the Extradition Act 1988 as being non-political will be taken to be serious non-political crimes for the purposes of assessing exclusion from protection under article 1F of the refugee convention and that, for the purposes of that article, a crime will be non-political where the primary motivation was non-political. It will require that certain crimes against people, serious drugs or property damage crimes and serious crimes committed in relation to immigration detention will be taken to be particularly serious crimes for the purpose of assessing whether Australia owes protection obligations to an individual under article 33(2) of the refugee convention. This will not affect the requirement under article 33(2) of the convention to consider whether a person convicted of a particularly serious crime also represents a risk to the community. It will provide the minister with the power to substitute a more favourable decision for an AAT decision where that decision is in relation to a review to refuse a protection visa. This legislation mirrors provisions already in place to allow the minister to substitute a more favourable decision in relation to decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The government holds a strong view that it is essential to restore the application of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees in Australia to its generally accepted interpretation. This bill achieves that outcome. It will promote integrity in protection visa application and decision making processes and assist in the government's goal to minimise fraud and deception during the assessment process and realise a more effective ability to remove failed asylum seekers through the requirements related to documentary evidence of identity.

We are in danger of creating two classes of refugees: on the one hand, legal refugees who apply under normal circumstances under our humanitarian program; on the other hand, illegals who try to buy their way into this country by criminally falsifying their claims, by seeking out services of people smugglers, by queue jumping genuine refugees and by paying for coaching on how to beat our system. It is clear that the majority of Australians want this bill to be passed. We are here as a parliament to give effect to the will of the people. I support the bill without reservation, and I challenge the opposition to join us on this occasion and support this bill. For six years, the opposition has frustrated attempts by the government, through Senate obstruction, to fix this problem. The challenge is there. If the opposition supports this bill, it will become law. It is good law.