Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; in Committee — 16th Aug 2012

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:54	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. ~~Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.~~ ~~''Background to the bill''~~ This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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 [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. ~~References~~ The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1) proposed by Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate). This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. _Background to the bill_ This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22) was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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](http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php) to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [Christmas Island](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island), and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:51	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. ''Background to the bill'' This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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 [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] 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].
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-24 10:11:45	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. ''Background to the bill'' This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] 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].
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-24 10:09:19	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. ''Background to the bill'' This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] 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]. * [1] 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].
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-21 15:30:43	Title Description The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. ''Background to the bill'' This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] 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].
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-21 15:13:29	Title Description The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. ''Background to the bill'' This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] 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].
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-21 15:02:05	Title Description The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. ''Background to the bill'' This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island, and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] 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].
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-21 14:59:59	Title Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Independent annual review Description The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a> . This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.</p> This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it. <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> ''Background to the bill'' <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p> This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island, and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] 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].
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 11:34:01	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.</p> <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a> . This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.</p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:06:06	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.</p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#7 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 09:58:28	Title ~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; in Committee~~ Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p>~~ ~~<p>I move the Greens amendment on sheet 7268 relating to statutory review:</p>~~ <p class="italic">Schedule 1, item 25, page 12 (after line 16), at the end of Subdivision B, add:</p> ~~<p class="italic">198AI Review of regional processing</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">  (1)   The Minister must cause an independent review of regional processing under this Subdivision to be undertaken:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">  (a)   within 12 months after the Minister first designates a country under section 198AB; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">  (b)   at least once every 12 months after the first review is undertaken under this section.</p>~~ <p class="italic">  (2)   A review under this section must include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements that each regional processing country has in place for persons taken to the country under section 198AD.</p> <p class="italic">  (3)   The Minister must cause a copy of a report of a review under this section to be released publicly within 14 days after the Minister receives the report.</p> <p>We have just spent all evening realising what flaws are in this piece of legislation. The minister has identified that, despite the fact that a designated country would require guidelines as to how people would be treated while they are in these places, basic understandings of protections, there is nothing in this legislation that actually requires that to happen. It is absolutely fundamental that we know just how this legislation is impacting on the very, very vulnerable people that it is inflicting pain on.</p> <p>This amendment allows for a review into how regional processing under 198A actually works. Under this amendment the minister must cause an independent review of regional processing under this subdivision within 12 months after the minister first designates a country under section 198AB and at least every 12 months after the first review is undertaken under this section. A review under this section must include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements that we have just seen this government vote down. We have just seen the government and the opposition vote down the protection arrangements that the Houston report said had to be included. So this review is important. We have seen all of these 'trust us' statements made in this chamber tonight, that even though these protections will not be in the law, because we have just had the government and the opposition vote them down, we are being asked to trust the government that they will happen anyway.</p> <p>So this review will include an analysis of whether those protections ever actually happened. There should not be any reason that the government would not support this amendment if indeed they believe all their own rhetoric. If indeed the minister is right about all of the protections, all of these agreements to treat people consistently with international law and human rights standards, including no arbitrary detention; if the processing in offshore facilities includes appropriate accommodation, appropriate physical and mental health services, access to education and vocational training programs, application assistance during the preparation of asylum claims, and an appeal mechanism for those who do not get a positive response in the first go; if the minister is right that there will be monitoring of care and protection arrangements and that there is a proper provision of case management assistance—if the government believe that all of these things will happen—then there is no reason why they will not agree with this review.</p> <p>The minister, under this amendment, must cause a copy of the report of the review under this section to be released publicly within 14 days after the minister has received the report. Currently in the Australian detention network, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is required to do reviews within the Australian detention system. He is required to ensure that the case load of individual asylum seekers is being managed properly. Every six months, if somebody has been in detention for longer than 12, he needs to review their case and provide a report to the minister. For anyone who has been in detention for longer than two years, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is required to release that report publicly.</p> <p>This legislation, as tabled tonight by the government, does not require any of those checks and balances, so this legally binding review would require at least some transparency about how these offshore detention facilities are operating. As I said, if the minister is honestly trying to tell us that all of these things—even though we have just seen the government vote them down—will actually happen, there is no reason why the government should not agree to the basic transparency of a review of offshore processing facilities and how they are operating. I ask the minister: is this something that the government is prepared to accept—some basic transparency in how these facilities will operate?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p>~~ <p>Again I feel the need to challenge some of the assertions made by Senator Hanson-Young that the government voted down protections, as she described. We did not do that. Those protections remain. We disagree with the Greens' proposed amendment—we do not believe it is necessary—but in no way has that removed those protections. Contrary to the assertion by Senator Hanson-Young that this proposed amendment, in putting in place a statutory review, enhances protections, in fact the strongest protection we have is that, in the agreements to be negotiated between Australia and designated countries, these negotiations take place with the involvement of stakeholders including the UNHCR and other entities. For these agreements to then be presented to both houses of parliament I believe offers the best prospect for transparency, for scrutiny and for that test that Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens seem to be looking for in how they express the need for a review.</p> <p>I do not think it will surprise the Greens to know that we as a government will be opposing this amendment. There is no doubt that reviews will be undertaken in respect of regional processing arrangements. I have no doubt that the ongoing commentary provided by all concerned, motivated and interested by this vexing matter will stand as a constant review of the operation of these policies, including the normal forms of scrutiny through the Senate estimates processes. We do not believe that there is a reason that that process of ongoing scrutiny and review needs a statutory requirement, and conducting 12-month reviews will have an effect of discouraging people from engaging in the proper migration processes and the processes we are trying to establish in creating a durable arrangement for migration in our region. On these bases, we are not going to be supporting the amendment currently before us.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p>~~ <p>I rise in support of my colleague's amendment in terms of a review. It is particularly important that we have a review of this legislation, because the debate tonight has shown very clearly that there is absolutely nothing in place. The government has nothing in the way of conditions.</p> <p>There are two things happening here. One is an assertion that there will be proper process, that all of the things that the Houston panel had asked for in terms of protections for refugees will be legislated by the government and will be put into place, and then, in the next breath, we hear on the news that the government is telling the defence forces to get the tents to Nauru, get things underway. They are sending people there straightaway, and they have put 220 people on notice that they are at risk of being sent to an offshore location. Subject to the parliament, Nauru and Manus Island, PNG, are currently on the agenda.</p> <p>So the minister is telling us that there will be laid on the table of this parliament all of the documents which will provide all of the details of the protections and the agreements with the countries—notwithstanding the fact that they are not legally binding—but we have just had the government vote down all of the protections that the Houston review said needed to be in place when Australia looked like sending anyone to one of these offshore locations. They are not in place, and the minister has not been able to tell us in any shape or form how long people are going to be stuck in these places or what is going to happen to them while they are there in terms of health, education, mental health services and all the other services that they need. Under that set of circumstances I think it is entirely reasonable that we say, given the fact that the government cannot answer the questions now and that the government has not been able to say how it will put in place the kinds of protections that are required, that surely the parliament should recognise that if the minister is to be kept to her word it is the parliament which will provide the scrutiny. There should then be a willingness to embrace the idea that the minister would require independent review of this arrangement within 12 months and that review on the protection and welfare arrangements in particular will be then part of a report which has to be released publicly within 14 days of the minister receiving it.</p> <p>Why is that unreasonable given the minister's complete inability to answer the questions about accommodation? She has not been able to answer a single question about how long those tents are going to be there, when people are going to be able to move into decent accommodation, and how long they are going to be there. We have not had any answers about health and mental health services in particular or any answers about any services. All we know is that there is a wish and a promise that those services will be provided at some point, and we know that children can be sent there with no guardian. We have no idea about the services or for how long. I do not think it is acceptable to have a minister stand up and say, 'I cannot tell you anything at all about how we are going to provide appropriate accommodation; I cannot tell you how the appropriate physical and mental health services are going to be carried out; I cannot tell you about access to education and vocational training programs; I cannot tell you about the assistance we might be able to give people during the preparation of their asylum claims; I cannot tell you about the appeal mechanism against negative decisions; I cannot tell you what monitoring of care and protection arrangements by a representative group will be able to be delivered.' She cannot tell us any of those things, but we are voting down a review as well. That is totally inappropriate. The government cannot answer that set of questions and now it is rejecting the idea of an independent review. The minister, the government and the coalition, having abandoned the guardianship of children, are not even prepared now to have a review after 12 months of the services they say they will provide—notwithstanding, as I said, that they are not legally bound to provide then. I want to know why the parliament should have any confidence that this review will be rolled out. If the government are not prepared to support this review, can the minister tell me what exactly are the monitoring and review arrangements that the government has in place?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p>~~ <p>I ask the minister directly why it is appropriate for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to have a statutory responsibility to inquire into detention centres in Australia but not detention centres that the government sets up offshore—out of sight, out of mind—when clearly the issue of transparency is more important when there is less access for others to see what is going on in those facilities.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p>~~ <p>The agreements we strike with a designated country capture the intent and the body of the obligations that Australia has under our international conventions. This is transferred through the body of the agreement with the designated country and carried forth in that way. The designated countries are not Australia and therefore the application of the Commonwealth Ombudsman does not apply. But it is through the mechanism of the agreement, which must as we know withstand the scrutiny of parliament, that we are able to be confident of those conditions and parameters under which those people go to those countries.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.</p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>

Change

Division

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:54

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
~~Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.~~
~~''Background to the bill''~~
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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 [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
~~References~~
The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1) proposed by Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
_Background to the bill_
This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22) was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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](http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php) to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [Christmas Island](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island), and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:51

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
''Background to the bill''
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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 [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] 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].

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-24 10:11:45

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
''Background to the bill''
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] 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].

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-24 10:09:19

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
''Background to the bill''
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] 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].
* [1] 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].

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-21 15:30:43

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
''Background to the bill''
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] 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].

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-21 15:13:29

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
''Background to the bill''
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] 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].

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-21 15:02:05

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
''Background to the bill''
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island, and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] 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].

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-21 14:59:59

Title

Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Independent annual review

Description

The majority voted in favour of an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.276.1 amendment] proposed by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
 This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a> . This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
 Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
 This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. 
''Background to the bill''
 More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.
This [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement 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.[1]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island, and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] 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].

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 11:34:01

Title

Description

This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a> . This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:06:06

Title

Description

This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#7

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 09:58:28

Title

~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; in Committee~~
Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee

Description

~~Sarah Hanson-Young~~
~~I move the Greens amendment on sheet 7268 relating to statutory review:~~
Schedule 1, item 25, page 12 (after line 16), at the end of Subdivision B, add:
~~198AI Review of regional processing~~
~~  (1)   The Minister must cause an independent review of regional processing under this Subdivision to be undertaken:~~
~~  (a)   within 12 months after the Minister first designates a country under section 198AB; and~~
~~  (b)   at least once every 12 months after the first review is undertaken under this section.~~
  (2)   A review under this section must include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements that each regional processing country has in place for persons taken to the country under section 198AD.
  (3)   The Minister must cause a copy of a report of a review under this section to be released publicly within 14 days after the Minister receives the report.
We have just spent all evening realising what flaws are in this piece of legislation. The minister has identified that, despite the fact that a designated country would require guidelines as to how people would be treated while they are in these places, basic understandings of protections, there is nothing in this legislation that actually requires that to happen. It is absolutely fundamental that we know just how this legislation is impacting on the very, very vulnerable people that it is inflicting pain on.
This amendment allows for a review into how regional processing under 198A actually works. Under this amendment the minister must cause an independent review of regional processing under this subdivision within 12 months after the minister first designates a country under section 198AB and at least every 12 months after the first review is undertaken under this section. A review under this section must include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements that we have just seen this government vote down. We have just seen the government and the opposition vote down the protection arrangements that the Houston report said had to be included. So this review is important. We have seen all of these 'trust us' statements made in this chamber tonight, that even though these protections will not be in the law, because we have just had the government and the opposition vote them down, we are being asked to trust the government that they will happen anyway.
So this review will include an analysis of whether those protections ever actually happened. There should not be any reason that the government would not support this amendment if indeed they believe all their own rhetoric. If indeed the minister is right about all of the protections, all of these agreements to treat people consistently with international law and human rights standards, including no arbitrary detention; if the processing in offshore facilities includes appropriate accommodation, appropriate physical and mental health services, access to education and vocational training programs, application assistance during the preparation of asylum claims, and an appeal mechanism for those who do not get a positive response in the first go; if the minister is right that there will be monitoring of care and protection arrangements and that there is a proper provision of case management assistance—if the government believe that all of these things will happen—then there is no reason why they will not agree with this review.
The minister, under this amendment, must cause a copy of the report of the review under this section to be released publicly within 14 days after the minister has received the report. Currently in the Australian detention network, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is required to do reviews within the Australian detention system. He is required to ensure that the case load of individual asylum seekers is being managed properly. Every six months, if somebody has been in detention for longer than 12, he needs to review their case and provide a report to the minister. For anyone who has been in detention for longer than two years, the Commonwealth Ombudsman is required to release that report publicly.
This legislation, as tabled tonight by the government, does not require any of those checks and balances, so this legally binding review would require at least some transparency about how these offshore detention facilities are operating. As I said, if the minister is honestly trying to tell us that all of these things—even though we have just seen the government vote them down—will actually happen, there is no reason why the government should not agree to the basic transparency of a review of offshore processing facilities and how they are operating. I ask the minister: is this something that the government is prepared to accept—some basic transparency in how these facilities will operate?
~~Kate Lundy~~
Again I feel the need to challenge some of the assertions made by Senator Hanson-Young that the government voted down protections, as she described. We did not do that. Those protections remain. We disagree with the Greens' proposed amendment—we do not believe it is necessary—but in no way has that removed those protections. Contrary to the assertion by Senator Hanson-Young that this proposed amendment, in putting in place a statutory review, enhances protections, in fact the strongest protection we have is that, in the agreements to be negotiated between Australia and designated countries, these negotiations take place with the involvement of stakeholders including the UNHCR and other entities. For these agreements to then be presented to both houses of parliament I believe offers the best prospect for transparency, for scrutiny and for that test that Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens seem to be looking for in how they express the need for a review.
I do not think it will surprise the Greens to know that we as a government will be opposing this amendment. There is no doubt that reviews will be undertaken in respect of regional processing arrangements. I have no doubt that the ongoing commentary provided by all concerned, motivated and interested by this vexing matter will stand as a constant review of the operation of these policies, including the normal forms of scrutiny through the Senate estimates processes. We do not believe that there is a reason that that process of ongoing scrutiny and review needs a statutory requirement, and conducting 12-month reviews will have an effect of discouraging people from engaging in the proper migration processes and the processes we are trying to establish in creating a durable arrangement for migration in our region. On these bases, we are not going to be supporting the amendment currently before us.
~~Christine Milne~~
I rise in support of my colleague's amendment in terms of a review. It is particularly important that we have a review of this legislation, because the debate tonight has shown very clearly that there is absolutely nothing in place. The government has nothing in the way of conditions.
There are two things happening here. One is an assertion that there will be proper process, that all of the things that the Houston panel had asked for in terms of protections for refugees will be legislated by the government and will be put into place, and then, in the next breath, we hear on the news that the government is telling the defence forces to get the tents to Nauru, get things underway. They are sending people there straightaway, and they have put 220 people on notice that they are at risk of being sent to an offshore location. Subject to the parliament, Nauru and Manus Island, PNG, are currently on the agenda.
So the minister is telling us that there will be laid on the table of this parliament all of the documents which will provide all of the details of the protections and the agreements with the countries—notwithstanding the fact that they are not legally binding—but we have just had the government vote down all of the protections that the Houston review said needed to be in place when Australia looked like sending anyone to one of these offshore locations. They are not in place, and the minister has not been able to tell us in any shape or form how long people are going to be stuck in these places or what is going to happen to them while they are there in terms of health, education, mental health services and all the other services that they need. Under that set of circumstances I think it is entirely reasonable that we say, given the fact that the government cannot answer the questions now and that the government has not been able to say how it will put in place the kinds of protections that are required, that surely the parliament should recognise that if the minister is to be kept to her word it is the parliament which will provide the scrutiny. There should then be a willingness to embrace the idea that the minister would require independent review of this arrangement within 12 months and that review on the protection and welfare arrangements in particular will be then part of a report which has to be released publicly within 14 days of the minister receiving it.
Why is that unreasonable given the minister's complete inability to answer the questions about accommodation? She has not been able to answer a single question about how long those tents are going to be there, when people are going to be able to move into decent accommodation, and how long they are going to be there. We have not had any answers about health and mental health services in particular or any answers about any services. All we know is that there is a wish and a promise that those services will be provided at some point, and we know that children can be sent there with no guardian. We have no idea about the services or for how long. I do not think it is acceptable to have a minister stand up and say, 'I cannot tell you anything at all about how we are going to provide appropriate accommodation; I cannot tell you how the appropriate physical and mental health services are going to be carried out; I cannot tell you about access to education and vocational training programs; I cannot tell you about the assistance we might be able to give people during the preparation of their asylum claims; I cannot tell you about the appeal mechanism against negative decisions; I cannot tell you what monitoring of care and protection arrangements by a representative group will be able to be delivered.' She cannot tell us any of those things, but we are voting down a review as well. That is totally inappropriate. The government cannot answer that set of questions and now it is rejecting the idea of an independent review. The minister, the government and the coalition, having abandoned the guardianship of children, are not even prepared now to have a review after 12 months of the services they say they will provide—notwithstanding, as I said, that they are not legally bound to provide then. I want to know why the parliament should have any confidence that this review will be rolled out. If the government are not prepared to support this review, can the minister tell me what exactly are the monitoring and review arrangements that the government has in place?
~~Sarah Hanson-Young~~
I ask the minister directly why it is appropriate for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to have a statutory responsibility to inquire into detention centres in Australia but not detention centres that the government sets up offshore—out of sight, out of mind—when clearly the issue of transparency is more important when there is less access for others to see what is going on in those facilities.
~~Kate Lundy~~
The agreements we strike with a designated country capture the intent and the body of the obligations that Australia has under our international conventions. This is transferred through the body of the agreement with the designated country and carried forth in that way. The designated countries are not Australia and therefore the application of the Commonwealth Ombudsman does not apply. But it is through the mechanism of the agreement, which must as we know withstand the scrutiny of parliament, that we are able to be confident of those conditions and parameters under which those people go to those countries.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister conducts an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the  Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. 
 More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.