|
representatives vote 2019-02-12#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-02-14 16:26:47
|
Title
Bills — Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018; Consideration of Senate Message- Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 - Consideration of Senate Message - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the amendments be disagreed to.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2019-02-12.120.1) to put the question. In other words, they voted in favour of speeding things along.
<p>The government does not agree to the amendments that have been sent to us by the Senate. As the Attorney-General so eloquently pointed out in his speech about the other question that was before the chair, we should not be dealing with these amendments at all in the House of Representatives today. Before I was shut down by the Manager of Opposition Business, I was going to make the very valid point that, in his speech, he admitted the central gravamen of the Attorney-General's argument—that this bill makes an appropriation and therefore cannot be considered by the House of Representatives without giving up 109 years of parliamentary precedents.</p><p>Why do we know that the Manager of Opposition Business has admitted the central tenet of the Attorney-General's argument? He seeks to amend this Senate amendment to make the doctors who would form the health panel voluntary, so he has admitted that therefore there must be remuneration in the original amendments from the Senate and it is therefore an appropriation bill, and that's why he seeks to amend it: to remove that appropriation. As the Attorney-General's central thesis was that the House of Representatives could not allow the Senate to make an appropriation, he has admitted the Attorney-General's argument, he has admitted that the Solicitor-General's advice is right and he has admitted that the Attorney-General's letter to the Speaker is correct.</p><p>Therefore what the opposition and the crossbenchers have done today in their last series of votes is decide that they don't care about the Australian Constitution and they don't care about the Westminster traditions that form the basis of our Constitution and our parliamentary system. I would remind the House that the English fought a civil war over this matter. The civil war in England between King Charles I and the parliament was over the right of the parliament or the king to make the appropriation. The king tried to implement a ship tax, the parliament said that wasn't his right to do so and they fought a civil war over it, yet the Labor Party today, because of their sheer desperation to score political points, have convinced the crossbench that it is wiser to throw out 109 years of parliamentary precedents and to throw out the hundreds of years of tradition which have formed the basis of our Westminster system in order to make a cheap political point.</p><p>It's bad enough that, to do so, Labor is prepared to weaken our border protection. By passing these Senate amendments, the Labor Party is prepared to put the people smugglers back in business, to put out the welcome mat to the people smugglers, to run the green light, if you like, for the people-smuggling trade. They're prepared to do all of that because they want to make cheap political points in the lead-up to an election.</p><p>I'm very disappointed that the crossbenchers have acquiesced to allowing this debate to occur, because, for two very significant reasons, they'll be remembered, unfortunately, under parliamentary precedents. This will all become the way the parliament now practises. They'll be remembered for allowing the Senate to send us appropriations initiated in the wrong house, without a message from the Governor-General, just so that the Labor Party could make political points.</p><p>Government members: Shame!</p><p>It is a shameful act on the part of the Labor Party. As the Labor Party are the only other party that can form government in this country, they have a wider responsibility to act in the interests of the parliament, in the interests of our parliamentary system—the Westminster tradition, which is the foundation of it. They will rue establishing precedents like this. It doesn't really matter what the result of the next election is, at some stage in the future there'll be other hung parliaments where governments will not have a majority, and there'll be crossbenchers who are passionate about a particular issue. Labor might well be in power at that time, in some distant future, and they will rue the day that they established the precedent where the people's house, the house which forms the government, which has for hundreds of years been the only house that can appropriate money, has abrogated that responsibility to the Senate, which can never be the basis of a house that forms a government.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Shorten</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</p><p class="italic">"The Senate amendments be agreed to with the amendments as set out in the schedule circulated to honourable Members."</p><p class="italic"> <i>The amendments read as follows—</i></p><p class="italic">(1) Amendment (2), at the end of section 198C, add:</p><p class="italic">Note: Any transitory person who is brought to Australia for a temporary purpose must be kept in immigration detention whilst in Australia. That immigration detention must continue until the time of removal from Australia or until the Minister determines that immigration detention is no longer required.</p><p class="italic">(2) Amendment (2), subsection 198D(2), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After".</p><p class="italic">(3) Amendment (2), after subsection 198D(2), insert:</p><p class="italic">(2A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (2):</p><p class="italic">(a) as soon as practicable after being notified; and</p><p class="italic">(b) no later than 72 hours after being notified.</p><p class="italic">(4) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198D(3), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(3) The Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</i>, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.</p><p class="italic">(3A) Within 72 hours of the Minister being notified under subsection (1), ASIO should advise the Minister if the transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation </i><i>Act 1979</i> (including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act) and if that threat cannot be mitigated.</p><p class="italic">(5) Amendment (2), subsection 198D(5), omit the subsection, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(5) If the Minister does not make a decision under subsection (2) within the time required by subsection (2A), the Minister is, at the end of the time, taken to have approved the person's transfer under subsection (2).</p><p class="italic">(6) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198E(2), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) A transitory person is a <i>relevant transitory person </i>if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person:</p><p class="italic">  (i) is in a regional processing country on the day this section commences; or</p><p class="italic">  (ii) is born in a regional processing country; and</p><p class="italic">(b) in the opinion of a treating doctor for the person:</p><p class="italic">  (i) the person requires medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment; and</p><p class="italic">  (ii) the person is not receiving appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment in the regional processing country; and</p><p class="italic">  (iii) it is necessary to remove the person from a regional processing country for appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment.</p><p class="italic">(7) Amendment (2), subsection 198E(3), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After".</p><p class="italic">(8) Amendment (2), after subsection 198E(3), insert:</p><p class="italic">(3A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (3):</p><p class="italic">(a) as soon as practicable after being notified; and</p><p class="italic">(b) no later than 72 hours after being notified.</p><p class="italic">(9) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198E(4), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(4) The Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Minister reasonably believes that it is not necessary to remove the person from a regional processing country for appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</i>, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or</p><p class="italic">(c) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.</p><p class="italic">(4A) Within 72 hours of the Minister being notified under subsection (1), ASIO should advise the Minister if the transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</i> (including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act) and if that threat cannot be mitigated.</p><p class="italic">(10) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198E(5), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(5) If the Minister does not make a decision under subsection (3) within the time required by subsection (3A), the Minister is, at the end of the time, taken to have approved the person's transfer under subsection (3).</p><p class="italic">(11) Amendment (2), subsection 198F(2), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "As soon as practicable, and no later than 72 hours, after".</p><p class="italic">(12) Amendment (2), subsection 198F(4), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After".</p><p class="italic">(13) Amendment (2), after subsection 198F(4), insert:</p><p class="italic">(4A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (4):</p><p class="italic">(a) as soon as practicable after being informed by the panel of its findings and recommendations; and</p><p class="italic">(b) no later than 24 hours after being informed by the panel of its findings and recommendation.</p><p class="italic">(14) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198F(5), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(5) If the panel recommends that the person's transfer be approved, the Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</i>, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.</p><p class="italic">(15) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198F(6), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(6) If the Minister does not make a decision under subsection (4) within the time required by subsection (4A), the Minister is, at the end of that time, taken to have approved the person's transfer under subsection (4).</p><p class="italic">(16) Amendment (2), subsection 198G(2), omit "Within 24 hours of", substitute "After".</p><p class="italic">(17) Amendment (2), after subsection 198G(2), insert:</p><p class="italic">(2A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (2):</p><p class="italic">(a) as soon as practicable after being informed; and</p><p class="italic">(b) no later than 72 hours after being informed.</p><p class="italic">(18) Amendment (2), omit subsection 198G(3), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(3) The Minister must approve the person's transfer to Australia unless:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</i>, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.</p><p class="italic">(3A) Within 72 hours of the Minister being informed under subsection (1), ASIO should advise the Minister if the transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</i> (including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act) and if that threat cannot be mitigated.</p><p class="italic">(19) Amendment (2), section 198H, after "198E(4) (b)" insert "or (c)".</p><p class="italic">(20) Amendment (2), at the end of section 199B, add:</p><p class="italic">(4) A person is not entitled to remuneration in respect of their position as a member of the panel.</p><p>Last week the Prime Minister said that this amended bill would be superfluous and to ignore it.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to amendments that have been circulated to the House. I don't see any amendments that have been circulated to the House on the table, and therefore he can't proceed until they've been circulated.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|