Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail — 27th Jun 2012

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by Henare Degan on 2014-10-10 15:15:29	Title Description
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by Henare Degan on 2014-10-10 15:15:28	Title Description The majority voted in favour a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1) to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [Anthony Albanese](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa). The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives). ) This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments. ~~_Background to the bill_~~ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154). ) To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. ~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.~~ This division relates to the Policy _[For refugee and protection international conventions](/policies/8)_. The majority voted in favour a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1) to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [Anthony Albanese](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa). The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives). ) This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments. _Background to the bill_ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154). ) To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law. References
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:21:02	Title Description The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here]. ) This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments. ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here]. ) To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. ~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.~~ ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1) to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [Anthony Albanese](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa). The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives). ) This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments. _Background to the bill_ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154). ) To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law. References
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:52	Title Description The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.[1] The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here]. ) This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments. ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[2] The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here]. ) To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[3] It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law. References * [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here]. * [2] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here]. * [3] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-28 12:21:55	Title Description ~~The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question.~~ This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called so moving that the question be put can effectively puts an end to debate. This motion was put forward by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. This means that someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate during the consideration in detail stage.[1] The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.[1] This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments. ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[2] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[3] It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law. References * [1] Read more about the stages of the bill [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. * [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here]. * [2] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here]. * [3] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-28 12:15:47	Title Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Put the question Description The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question. This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called so moving that the question be put can effectively puts an end to debate. This motion was put forward by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. This means that someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate during the consideration in detail stage.[1] <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>. ''Background to the bill'' ~~<p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion. </p>~~ ~~<p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p>~~ <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. ~~<p><b>Background to Bill</b></p>~~ <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ~~">28 June 2012</a>.~~ <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. ~~<p><b>Qualifiers</b></p>~~ <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p> The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[2] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[3] It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law. References * [1] Read more about the stages of the bill [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. * [2] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here]. * [3] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-21 07:44:22	Title Description <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>. <p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. <p><b>Qualifiers</b></p> <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p>
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-21 07:42:36	Title Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail Description <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>. <p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a> <p><b>Qualifiers</b></p> <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p>
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-21 07:41:37	Title Description <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amendments proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Morrison&mpc=Cook&house=representatives">Morrison MP</a> be agreed upon. These amendments specified that on offshore processing country must be party to the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1954/5.html">Refugees Convention</a> or the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html">Refugees Protocol</a>. <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>. ~~<p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports these amendments. The majority voted aye in this amendment. </p>~~ <p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a> <p><b>Qualifiers</b></p> <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p>
representatives vote 2012-06-27#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-20 07:44:24	Title ~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail~~ Description ~~<p class="speaker">Robert Oakeshott</p>~~ <p>In the short time that I have I would like to reiterate that this bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012, should pass this parliament not only because of events today but also because of events of the last decade. I urge all members of this House to at least allow this to be tried—and, by all means, if it does not work, take it to the next election, take it to the people. But we should in this chamber allow an executive to do its job. This is in no way running interference on community based detention, on onshore assessment or on issues of genuine refugee and asylum status in Australia. This is, as much as anything, trying to stop the loss of life at sea of people trying to get to Australia for a number of reasons. This is trying to reach bilateral agreements with countries in the Asia-Pacific region to slow the movement of people within our region. This is attempting to try to break criminal syndicates that are running off the edges of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and are involved in the insidious trades of people smuggling and—the one that does not get much airtime in Australia but should—the worst crime of all, in my view, the crime of people trafficking, particularly in the sex trade in the Asia-Pacific region and, yes, right here in Australia as well.</p> <p>I want to clarify again what I wrote to all members on 13 March—that is, that this is not a carbon copy of the government's Malaysia bill. This is a combination of three things. Firstly, it is trying to codify in domestic law the Bali process, which is a bipartisan process started by Alexander Downer in 2002, continued by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and others and co-chaired by Australia and Indonesia. With the Indonesian President coming here next week, what better message from this parliament than to say that we as an Australian parliament want to reach out to Indonesia and work together to slow the movement of people in our region? The Bali process is the regional cooperation framework—and I am happy to once again, if required, recirculate the key principles of that Bali process. They are good, defining principles for what I think we are all trying to achieve with respect to border protection and humanitarian issues in dealing with refugees and people smugglers. That is the first part of this bill.</p> <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amendments proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Morrison&mpc=Cook&house=representatives">Morrison MP</a> be agreed upon. These amendments specified that on offshore processing country must be party to the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1954/5.html">Refugees Convention</a> or the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html">Refugees Protocol</a>. <p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports these amendments. The majority voted aye in this amendment. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a> <p><b>Qualifiers</b></p> <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p> ~~<p>Secondly, it does pick up on elements of the government bill in response to the recent High Court decision. That is a game-changer. This bill does pick up on part of that.</p>~~ <p>Thirdly, it also picks up on is the Liberal-National coalition amendments to the above bill, which attempt to allow only countries participating in the United Nations 1951 refugee convention to participate in bilateral agreements on offshore assessment. On this third point, I refer you directly to the following sections of the bill that try to pick that up—section 198AB and section 198AC, which look at offshore assessment country processes and the way that documents should be now laid on the table so that basically anything the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship does from here on has to come before the parliament, and organisations like the International Office of Migration and the UNHCR have to table documents in this place in a transparent way and in a way that allows for debate to continue in this chamber.</p> <p>It is not correct that the Leader of the Opposition says that the coalition's position has been consistent—and I am happy to recirculate the letter I sent to everyone on 13 March which identifies the significant shift in the position of the coalition and their relationship with the UN refugee convention. They have flipped on that in the last two years and are now using that as a straw man argument to run interference on getting this parliament to do something.</p> ~~<p>Today is the day that we do something, and I urge this House to finally pass this bill.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p>~~ <p>I acknowledge the good intentions of the member for Lyne and I acknowledge the good intentions of, I think, every single member in this House of wanting to address this issue. But good intentions are not enough to deal with the problem that has been before this place for the last five years. We need more than good intentions to address the terrible things that have happened over the last four to five years. It was good intentions, I am absolutely sure, that led members of that side of the House when they came to government to abolish the measures that existed under the Howard government. It was the arguments of many outside of this place who campaigned for years and years—and described those measures which kept our borders secure and ensured that fewer than 300 people turned up in six years—and that prevailed in 2007, and the measures that were in place were abolished. Since then we have seen more than 19,000 people arrive and we have seen more than 330 illegal boats arrive—and, even as we speak, we are seeing another tragedy unfolding to our north.</p> <p>The Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012, which has been put forward by the member for Lyne, effectively achieves the same outcome as the government's bill in abolishing all human rights protections that are legally binding under our Migration Act. That is what it does, and I will move in my name amendments that would seek to restrict those countries that could be eligible for offshore processing under the member for Lyne's bill to be limited to those countries that have signed the refugee convention. It was the High Court itself when it issued a statement on the matter that has focused the minds of the parliament today that said:</p> <p class="italic">The Court held that, under s 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Minister cannot validly declare a country (as a country to which asylum seekers can be taken for processing) unless that country is legally bound to meet three criteria. The country must be legally bound by international law ...</p> ~~<p>That is what it said. This bill does not confine or restrict those countries to those countries that are bound by international law.</p>~~ <p>The question is asked: why is this important now to the coalition? It is a simple answer. It is because this bill, as with the government's bill, seeks to remove the legally binding human rights protections in the act. And when you remove those protections, those on this side of the House, who believe in offshore processing and offshore protections, say that those measures should be replaced by other legally binding protections. The only objective, legally binding protection that can be used as a litmus test for this parliament to give instructions to the executive as to which countries and which places they could send people is whether a country is a signatory to the refugee convention. There are 148 countries who have signed that convention. That includes the Philippines, that includes Nauru, that includes Papua New Guinea, and that includes many other countries.</p> <p>These protections are important. You have to ask yourself the question: why is it necessary to abolish the protections that exist in the Migration Act to allow this abominable Malaysian people swap deal to proceed? Why is that necessary? Why must you abolish human rights protections to enable this deal to proceed? That is what is being put before this parliament, not only by those members opposite but also by the member for Lyne. The Bali process, as he outlined in his bill, is a worthy process and one we initiated in government but it does not provide legally binding international obligations on its participants. We believe in a bill that would have the consensus of this House and of the other place—because the only bill that will leave this parliament this week is one that reflects the consensus of both houses of this parliament. That is the bill that the Leader of the Opposition referred to earlier, when he sought to have that bill introduced and was frustrated by the members of the government.</p> <p>Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move the amendments and I implore this parliament to protect those protections in the human rights field in the Migration Act for offshore processing. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>Is the member for Cook seeking to move the three amendments standing in his name?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p>~~ ~~<p>I am.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>The member for Cook will need to seek leave of the House.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p>~~ ~~<p>I seek leave to move the amendments standing in my name.</p>~~ ~~<p>Leave granted.</p>~~ ~~<p>I move opposition amendments (1) to (3):</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (lines 14 to 16), omit paragraph (d), substitute:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(d) the designation of a country to be an offshore processing country need be determined only by reference to the fact that the country is a party to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.</p> ~~<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (lines 20 to 23), omit subsection 198AB(2), substitute:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(2) The only conditions for the exercise of the power under subsection (1) are that the Minister thinks that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be an offshore processing country, and that the country is a party to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.</p> ~~<p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph (f), substitute:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(f) a copy of the instruments of accession by the country to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>Is the motion seconded?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ <p>In seconding these amendments to the bill, I highlight the fact that the Prime Minister has attempted to say in this chamber today that she wanted the politics to be set aside, but she in fact does not. If she did, she would agree to the amendments.</p> <p>The sticking point is, as the member for Cook has just outlined, that we on this side insist that a country where offshore processing is to take place must be a country that has signed the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The member for Cook has pointed out that Nauru, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Philippines are countries that have done so, and that Malaysia is a country that has not. The member for Cook has also pointed out that the High Court said that the minister was incapable of giving protection under section 198A of the Migration Act to protect the rights of those people—and that showed, quite frankly, that he had not done his homework.</p> <p>The proposed Malaysian solution—what a hideous term it is—is in fact a trade in human flesh. It is swapping human beings from point A to point B and it is totally and utterly unacceptable to this side of the House. If the Prime Minister were fair dinkum about her wish to find a way through this impasse and to see that we have legislation enacted that would be a deterrent to the trade of the people smugglers, then she would agree to these amendments.</p> <p>It is quite clear that when those on the other side of the House get up and deny, as they regularly do, that the legislation that was implemented and the actions that were taken by the Howard government worked and that the boats stopped, they are in absolute denial. There was one person on ABC Radio this morning who did admit that the boats stopped as a result of the Howard actions, but said that that did not actually amount to a solution for the difficulty. The fact of the matter is that by having temporary protection visas, by having offshore processing and by turning boats around when safe to do so—and our proposal is not, as the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness said this morning, to tow boats around, again, a misleading statement; our proposal is that boats be turned around where it is safe to do so—the Howard government took actions that worked.</p> <p>The overall and most important requirement on this side of the House is that offshore processing only take place where the convention has been signed. Choosing to have a trade in human flesh with a nation that has not signed the refugee convention shows that the Prime Minister has no legitimacy and no real concern about trying to stop those boats being put to sea. We saw all the intoning and all the trickery that went on prior to question time, when the Leader of Government Business was trying to stop the Leader of the Opposition moving to suspend standing orders and have a vote in order to see the opposition's bill—the bill that would be the step that is necessary to stop the trade of the people smugglers and to stop people putting their lives at risk on the high seas.</p> <p>Madam Deputy Speaker, if the government has any sense of wanting to show the Australian people that it can tell the truth on just one thing, it will agree to the opposition amendments that have been moved by the member for Cook. It is not too late for the government to change its mind, if it sees fit to do so. It is not too late for the Prime Minister to stop intoning about wishing to find a solution and take some action that will stop the boats. That means having the three-pronged policy: you turn the boats around where it is safe to do so; you have offshore processing but only where the refugee convention has been signed; and you have temporary protection visas so that, when it is safe for a refugee to return to their homeland, they will do so. In the meantime there is no family reunion, which is part of the 'sugar on the table' that Indonesia refer to when they talk about Australia tempting people to come here and risk their lives. We have the opportunity right now to take action by accepting the amendments as moved by the member for Cook. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> ~~<p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p>~~ <p>The Australian people are watching this parliament. The Australian people are asking the question: will this parliament put aside the partisan political divide to save lives? This parliament should today say: 'Yes. We will put aside the politics of the ordinary days, we will put aside partisan point-scoring and we will act to save lives.'</p> ~~<p class="italic">Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>Member for Higgins, I will not truck anything during this debate. There is a vote at the end of it. The minister has the call.</p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by Henare Degan

on 2014-10-10 15:15:29

Title

Description

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by Henare Degan

on 2014-10-10 15:15:28

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1) to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [Anthony Albanese](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa). The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives). )
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments.
~~_Background to the bill_~~
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154). )
To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.~~
This division relates to the Policy _[For refugee and protection international conventions](/policies/8)_.
The majority voted in favour a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1) to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [Anthony Albanese](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa). The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives). )
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments.
_Background to the bill_
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154). )
To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.
References

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:02

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here]. )
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments.
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here]. )
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.~~
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1) to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [Anthony Albanese](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa). The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives). )
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments.
_Background to the bill_
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154). )
To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.
References

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:52

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.[1]
The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here]. )
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments.
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[2]
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here]. )
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[3] It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.
References
* [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here].
* [2] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].
* [3] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-28 12:21:55

Title

Description

~~The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question.~~
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called so moving that the question be put can effectively puts an end to debate. This motion was put forward by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. This means that someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate during the consideration in detail stage.[1]
The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.[1]
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments.
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[2]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[3] It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.
References
* [1] Read more about the stages of the bill [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
* [1] That division is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-27&number=2&house=representatives here].
* [2] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].
* [3] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-28 12:15:47

Title

Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail
Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Put the question

Description

The majority voted in favour a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.102.1 motion] to put the question.
This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called so moving that the question be put can effectively puts an end to debate. This motion was put forward by Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa Anthony Albanese]. This means that someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate during the consideration in detail stage.[1]
The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>.
''Background to the bill''
~~ Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion. ~~
~~Summary of debate in Parliament~~
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
~~Background to Bill~~
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
~~">28 June 2012</a>.~~
 More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>.
~~Qualifiers~~
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[2]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[3] It also amends the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.
References
* [1] Read more about the stages of the bill [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
* [2] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].
* [3] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-21 07:44:22

Title

Description

The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>.
Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion.
Summary of debate in Parliament
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a>
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>.
Qualifiers
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-21 07:42:36

Title

Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail

Description

The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>.
Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion.
Summary of debate in Parliament
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a>
Qualifiers
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-21 07:41:37

Title

Description

The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amendments proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Morrison&mpc=Cook&house=representatives">Morrison MP</a> be agreed upon. These amendments specified that on offshore processing country must be party to the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1954/5.html">Refugees Convention</a> or the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html">Refugees Protocol</a>.
The aye votes succeeded in passing an motion that the question now be put. This is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put debate stops and a division is called. This motion was put forward by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mps.phpa">Anthony Albanese MP</a>.
~~ Someone who votes aye in this division supports these amendments. The majority voted aye in this amendment. ~~
Someone who votes aye in this division supports the motion to end debate on this Bill. The majority voted aye on this motion.
Summary of debate in Parliament
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a>
Qualifiers
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.

representatives vote 2012-06-27#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-20 07:44:24

Title

~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail~~

Description

~~Robert Oakeshott~~
In the short time that I have I would like to reiterate that this bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012, should pass this parliament not only because of events today but also because of events of the last decade. I urge all members of this House to at least allow this to be tried—and, by all means, if it does not work, take it to the next election, take it to the people. But we should in this chamber allow an executive to do its job. This is in no way running interference on community based detention, on onshore assessment or on issues of genuine refugee and asylum status in Australia. This is, as much as anything, trying to stop the loss of life at sea of people trying to get to Australia for a number of reasons. This is trying to reach bilateral agreements with countries in the Asia-Pacific region to slow the movement of people within our region. This is attempting to try to break criminal syndicates that are running off the edges of asylum seekers and genuine refugees and are involved in the insidious trades of people smuggling and—the one that does not get much airtime in Australia but should—the worst crime of all, in my view, the crime of people trafficking, particularly in the sex trade in the Asia-Pacific region and, yes, right here in Australia as well.
I want to clarify again what I wrote to all members on 13 March—that is, that this is not a carbon copy of the government's Malaysia bill. This is a combination of three things. Firstly, it is trying to codify in domestic law the Bali process, which is a bipartisan process started by Alexander Downer in 2002, continued by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and others and co-chaired by Australia and Indonesia. With the Indonesian President coming here next week, what better message from this parliament than to say that we as an Australian parliament want to reach out to Indonesia and work together to slow the movement of people in our region? The Bali process is the regional cooperation framework—and I am happy to once again, if required, recirculate the key principles of that Bali process. They are good, defining principles for what I think we are all trying to achieve with respect to border protection and humanitarian issues in dealing with refugees and people smugglers. That is the first part of this bill.
The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amendments proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Morrison&mpc=Cook&house=representatives">Morrison MP</a> be agreed upon. These amendments specified that on offshore processing country must be party to the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1954/5.html">Refugees Convention</a> or the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html">Refugees Protocol</a>.
 Someone who votes aye in this division supports these amendments. The majority voted aye in this amendment. 
Summary of debate in Parliament
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
 More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. More information on the amendment and the debate surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0124;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F3e4e9532-bf3c-4623-bc6b-c0e926ad7cec%2F0000%22">here</a>
Qualifiers
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.
~~Secondly, it does pick up on elements of the government bill in response to the recent High Court decision. That is a game-changer. This bill does pick up on part of that.~~
Thirdly, it also picks up on is the Liberal-National coalition amendments to the above bill, which attempt to allow only countries participating in the United Nations 1951 refugee convention to participate in bilateral agreements on offshore assessment. On this third point, I refer you directly to the following sections of the bill that try to pick that up—section 198AB and section 198AC, which look at offshore assessment country processes and the way that documents should be now laid on the table so that basically anything the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship does from here on has to come before the parliament, and organisations like the International Office of Migration and the UNHCR have to table documents in this place in a transparent way and in a way that allows for debate to continue in this chamber.
It is not correct that the Leader of the Opposition says that the coalition's position has been consistent—and I am happy to recirculate the letter I sent to everyone on 13 March which identifies the significant shift in the position of the coalition and their relationship with the UN refugee convention. They have flipped on that in the last two years and are now using that as a straw man argument to run interference on getting this parliament to do something.
~~Today is the day that we do something, and I urge this House to finally pass this bill.~~
~~Scott Morrison~~
I acknowledge the good intentions of the member for Lyne and I acknowledge the good intentions of, I think, every single member in this House of wanting to address this issue. But good intentions are not enough to deal with the problem that has been before this place for the last five years. We need more than good intentions to address the terrible things that have happened over the last four to five years. It was good intentions, I am absolutely sure, that led members of that side of the House when they came to government to abolish the measures that existed under the Howard government. It was the arguments of many outside of this place who campaigned for years and years—and described those measures which kept our borders secure and ensured that fewer than 300 people turned up in six years—and that prevailed in 2007, and the measures that were in place were abolished. Since then we have seen more than 19,000 people arrive and we have seen more than 330 illegal boats arrive—and, even as we speak, we are seeing another tragedy unfolding to our north.
The Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012, which has been put forward by the member for Lyne, effectively achieves the same outcome as the government's bill in abolishing all human rights protections that are legally binding under our Migration Act. That is what it does, and I will move in my name amendments that would seek to restrict those countries that could be eligible for offshore processing under the member for Lyne's bill to be limited to those countries that have signed the refugee convention. It was the High Court itself when it issued a statement on the matter that has focused the minds of the parliament today that said:
The Court held that, under s 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Minister cannot validly declare a country (as a country to which asylum seekers can be taken for processing) unless that country is legally bound to meet three criteria. The country must be legally bound by international law ...
~~That is what it said. This bill does not confine or restrict those countries to those countries that are bound by international law.~~
The question is asked: why is this important now to the coalition? It is a simple answer. It is because this bill, as with the government's bill, seeks to remove the legally binding human rights protections in the act. And when you remove those protections, those on this side of the House, who believe in offshore processing and offshore protections, say that those measures should be replaced by other legally binding protections. The only objective, legally binding protection that can be used as a litmus test for this parliament to give instructions to the executive as to which countries and which places they could send people is whether a country is a signatory to the refugee convention. There are 148 countries who have signed that convention. That includes the Philippines, that includes Nauru, that includes Papua New Guinea, and that includes many other countries.
These protections are important. You have to ask yourself the question: why is it necessary to abolish the protections that exist in the Migration Act to allow this abominable Malaysian people swap deal to proceed? Why is that necessary? Why must you abolish human rights protections to enable this deal to proceed? That is what is being put before this parliament, not only by those members opposite but also by the member for Lyne. The Bali process, as he outlined in his bill, is a worthy process and one we initiated in government but it does not provide legally binding international obligations on its participants. We believe in a bill that would have the consensus of this House and of the other place—because the only bill that will leave this parliament this week is one that reflects the consensus of both houses of this parliament. That is the bill that the Leader of the Opposition referred to earlier, when he sought to have that bill introduced and was frustrated by the members of the government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move the amendments and I implore this parliament to protect those protections in the human rights field in the Migration Act for offshore processing. (Time expired)
~~Anna Burke~~
~~Is the member for Cook seeking to move the three amendments standing in his name?~~
~~Scott Morrison~~
~~I am.~~
~~Anna Burke~~
~~The member for Cook will need to seek leave of the House.~~
~~Scott Morrison~~
~~I seek leave to move the amendments standing in my name.~~
~~Leave granted.~~
~~I move opposition amendments (1) to (3):~~
~~(1) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (lines 14 to 16), omit paragraph (d), substitute:~~
(d) the designation of a country to be an offshore processing country need be determined only by reference to the fact that the country is a party to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.
~~(2) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (lines 20 to 23), omit subsection 198AB(2), substitute:~~
(2) The only conditions for the exercise of the power under subsection (1) are that the Minister thinks that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be an offshore processing country, and that the country is a party to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.
~~(3) Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (lines 7 to 9), omit paragraph (f), substitute:~~
~~(f) a copy of the instruments of accession by the country to the Refugees Convention or the Refugees Protocol.~~
~~Anna Burke~~
~~Is the motion seconded?~~
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
In seconding these amendments to the bill, I highlight the fact that the Prime Minister has attempted to say in this chamber today that she wanted the politics to be set aside, but she in fact does not. If she did, she would agree to the amendments.
The sticking point is, as the member for Cook has just outlined, that we on this side insist that a country where offshore processing is to take place must be a country that has signed the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The member for Cook has pointed out that Nauru, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Philippines are countries that have done so, and that Malaysia is a country that has not. The member for Cook has also pointed out that the High Court said that the minister was incapable of giving protection under section 198A of the Migration Act to protect the rights of those people—and that showed, quite frankly, that he had not done his homework.
The proposed Malaysian solution—what a hideous term it is—is in fact a trade in human flesh. It is swapping human beings from point A to point B and it is totally and utterly unacceptable to this side of the House. If the Prime Minister were fair dinkum about her wish to find a way through this impasse and to see that we have legislation enacted that would be a deterrent to the trade of the people smugglers, then she would agree to these amendments.
It is quite clear that when those on the other side of the House get up and deny, as they regularly do, that the legislation that was implemented and the actions that were taken by the Howard government worked and that the boats stopped, they are in absolute denial. There was one person on ABC Radio this morning who did admit that the boats stopped as a result of the Howard actions, but said that that did not actually amount to a solution for the difficulty. The fact of the matter is that by having temporary protection visas, by having offshore processing and by turning boats around when safe to do so—and our proposal is not, as the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness said this morning, to tow boats around, again, a misleading statement; our proposal is that boats be turned around where it is safe to do so—the Howard government took actions that worked.
The overall and most important requirement on this side of the House is that offshore processing only take place where the convention has been signed. Choosing to have a trade in human flesh with a nation that has not signed the refugee convention shows that the Prime Minister has no legitimacy and no real concern about trying to stop those boats being put to sea. We saw all the intoning and all the trickery that went on prior to question time, when the Leader of Government Business was trying to stop the Leader of the Opposition moving to suspend standing orders and have a vote in order to see the opposition's bill—the bill that would be the step that is necessary to stop the trade of the people smugglers and to stop people putting their lives at risk on the high seas.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the government has any sense of wanting to show the Australian people that it can tell the truth on just one thing, it will agree to the opposition amendments that have been moved by the member for Cook. It is not too late for the government to change its mind, if it sees fit to do so. It is not too late for the Prime Minister to stop intoning about wishing to find a solution and take some action that will stop the boats. That means having the three-pronged policy: you turn the boats around where it is safe to do so; you have offshore processing but only where the refugee convention has been signed; and you have temporary protection visas so that, when it is safe for a refugee to return to their homeland, they will do so. In the meantime there is no family reunion, which is part of the 'sugar on the table' that Indonesia refer to when they talk about Australia tempting people to come here and risk their lives. We have the opportunity right now to take action by accepting the amendments as moved by the member for Cook. (Time expired)
~~Chris Bowen~~
The Australian people are watching this parliament. The Australian people are asking the question: will this parliament put aside the partisan political divide to save lives? This parliament should today say: 'Yes. We will put aside the politics of the ordinary days, we will put aside partisan point-scoring and we will act to save lives.'
~~Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—~~
~~Anna Burke~~
~~Member for Higgins, I will not truck anything during this debate. There is a vote at the end of it. The minister has the call.~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~