Division Description Changes — Bills — Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011; Third Reading — 25th Nov 2011

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2011-11-25#6 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:44	Title Description ~~The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time.~~ This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. ) Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,(The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. ) it will now become law. ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. ) which has now occurred with this division. Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].) ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1) to read the bill for a third time. This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). ) Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,(The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions). Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). ) it will now become law. _Background to the bill_ The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). ) which has now occurred with this division. Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).) References
senate vote 2011-11-25#6 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:49	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time. This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[1] This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. ) ~~Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,[2] it will now become law.~~ Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,(The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. ) it will now become law. ''Background to the bill'' The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division. The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. ) which has now occurred with this division. ~~Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[5]~~ Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].) References * [1] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [2] The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [3] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [4] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [5] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
senate vote 2011-11-25#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 09:46:02	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time. This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[1] Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,[2] it will now become law. ''Background to the bill'' The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division. The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division. Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[5] References * [1] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [2] The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [3] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [4] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [5] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
senate vote 2011-11-25#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 09:44:13	Title Bills — Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011; Third Reading Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 - Third Reading - Read a third time Description ~~<p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p>~~ ~~<p>I move:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">That the bill be now read a third time.</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time. This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[1] Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,[2] it will now become law. ''Background to the bill'' The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division. Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[5] References * [1] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [2] The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [3] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [4] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [5] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here]. ~~<p>Question put.</p>~~ ~~<p>The Senate divided. [15:56]</p>~~ ~~<p>(The President—Senator Hogg)</p>~~ ~~<p>Question agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p>Bill read a third time.</p>~~

Change

Division

senate vote 2011-11-25#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:44

Title

Description

~~The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time.~~
This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. )
Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,(The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. ) it will now become law.
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. ) which has now occurred with this division.
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].)
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1) to read the bill for a third time.
This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). )
Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,(The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions). Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). ) it will now become law.
_Background to the bill_
The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). ) which has now occurred with this division.
Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).)
References

senate vote 2011-11-25#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:49

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time.
This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[1]
This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. )
~~Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,[2] it will now become law.~~
Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,(The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. ) it will now become law.
''Background to the bill''
The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division.
The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. ) which has now occurred with this division.
~~Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[5]~~
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].)
References
* [1] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [2] The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [3] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [4] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [5] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].

senate vote 2011-11-25#6

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 09:46:02

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time.
This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[1]
Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,[2] it will now become law.
''Background to the bill''
The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division.
The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division.
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[5]
References
* [1] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [2] The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [3] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [4] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [5] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].

senate vote 2011-11-25#6

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 09:44:13

Title

Bills — Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011; Third Reading
Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 - Third Reading - Read a third time

Description

~~Joe Ludwig~~
~~I move:~~
~~That the bill be now read a third time.~~
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.87.1 motion] to read the bill for a third time.
This means that the majority of senators want to pass the bill, which was introduced to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[1]
Since the bill was previously passed in the House of Representatives,[2] it will now become law.
''Background to the bill''
The bill's introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[3] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill,[4] which has now occurred with this division.
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[5]
References
* [1] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [2] The bill was passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division]. Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [3] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [4] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [5] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
~~Question put.~~
~~The Senate divided. [15:56]~~
~~(The President—Senator Hogg)~~
~~Question agreed to.~~
~~Bill read a third time.~~