|
senate vote 2019-02-13#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-05-19 12:39:05
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Let another vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the motion circulated in the chamber, with respect to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be agreed to without amendment or debate.</p><p>Those who were watching the House of Representatives yesterday will be aware of the importance of this matter. It is critical that we address this issue first-up today and that we address the very critical issues. I understand that the motion is being circulated, but it seems that it hasn't reached you yet, Mr President.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Fifield, on a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Senator Collins said that a motion had been circulated. It doesn't seem to be at this table.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I have just made the unofficial point as well. I don't have a copy either.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>She's misleading the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>I am not misleading the chamber. In anticipating the urgency and gravity of the nature of this, I'm more than happy to read the motion so that senators can have clear in their minds what we're addressing or seeking a suspension for. The motion reads:</p><p class="italic">That:</p><p class="italic">(a) the message from the House of Representatives relating to the Senate amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be reported immediately,</p><p class="italic">(b) consideration of the message shall have precedence over all other business, including senators' statements and question time, until determined,</p><p class="italic">(c) immediately after the message is reported, the following motion in respect of the message shall be proposed from the Chair and considered without amendment:</p><p class="italic">  That the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendments to the bill.</p><p class="italic">(d) a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 5 minutes and, if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the motion is proposed, the question on the motion shall then be put, and</p><p class="italic">(e)—</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>You're making it up as you go.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Indeed we are, Senator Bernardi. Unfortunately, IT doesn't function effectively. I have (e) here.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>A point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>There is no point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Sorry, Senator Collins; I do have to hear the point of order from Senator Fifield.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Not only are we at the disadvantage of not having a copy of the motion, but Senator Collins herself doesn't have a complete copy of her own motion. Item (e) is on someone's iPhone. It's not before Senator Collins or in the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>On the point of order on circulation, I have been advised by the Clerk that, as long as the motion is circulated by the conclusion of this debate to allow senators to read it prior to the vote, that would mean it is compliant. I will encourage circulation of the motion, not least of all to me in the chair, to show courtesy to all senators.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>Just on a point of order, Mr President: Senator Collins has admitted that she's making this up as she goes. How can they then circulate this motion, when she is just making it up on the run?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Collins was reading a motion, and it will be circulated prior to the conclusion of the debate, and as soon as possible, for the courtesy of senators, myself included.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>It is unfortunate that senators on the other side would seek to make light of an issue as important as this, but I will get to (e) now, which unfortunately, I do admit, was caught behind other papers in front of me, and then we resorted to technology to attempt to resolve that. But let me get to (e).</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>A point of order, Mr President: this really demonstrates the same level of care, concern and attention to detail which has been manifested in relation to this particular bill and those opposite when it comes to border security.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Fifield, there is an opportunity for this motion to be debated. That's not a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>I thought that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate actually wanted to hear (e). I'll get to (e) now:</p><p class="italic">(e) at the conclusion of consideration of the message, government business order of the day No.4 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 shall be called on and have precedence over all government business until determined.</p><p>That is the motion that I have moved the suspension with respect to. We've moved this motion this morning because the opposition believes that, given the events in the House of Representatives yesterday, the issue should be given precedence over all other business until it is resolved. The volatility in this place just highlights that further. The House of Representatives yesterday made amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 that was considered in the Senate on the final sitting day of 2018. These amendments mean that the government must now listen to advice of doctors about whether sick refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island should be evacuated to Australia for medical care.</p><p>Labor worked with the crossbench members of the other place to secure important amendments to strengthen this bill. Labor has been doing the same thing in the Senate and has been working closely with senators across the crossbench to make sure these amendments are supported in both houses of parliament. The passing of these amendments in the House yesterday afternoon marked the first time a government has lost a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives in 90 years. This is a significant event and one that surely means the issue deserves priority consideration this morning in the Senate.</p><p>The hysterical response from the Liberal government to the events of the House of Representatives just shows how desperate they are. We have a dangerous and volatile Prime Minister. The attempts of the government today to prevent this issue from being dealt with as a matter of priority show they are just scared of losing another vote. They are a government that is divided. They are a government in chaos. They are a government—put simply—out of control. The government cannot be surprised that this matter would be atop our priority list in the Senate today. The government could have been the ones to list this issue the first time this morning, but instead we have business as usual—the Labor Party managing the program from opposition, something we have seen consistently now for some time. I urge senators to support this suspension. Let this chamber have the debate.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government will not be supporting this motion. What this motion by the Labor Party shows to the Australian people is just how cocky, how reckless, how irresponsible and how weak Bill Shorten is as leader of the Labor Party. Bill Shorten is demonstrating to all Australians that he does not have the strength of character or the good judgement required to be Prime Minister of Australia. In pursuit of a short-term tactical political advantage, he has decided to compromise our national security and to compromise our border protection arrangements.</p><p>What Labor is doing here today is trying to ram legislation through the Senate which will weaken our border protection arrangements. Let's just remind ourselves what the Labor Party tried to do in the Senate—very incompetently, I might add—back in December. Back in December, the Labor Party tried to ram legislation through the Senate which Bill Shorten yesterday had to admit would have denied the opportunity for the government to turn away criminals from Australia and would have put the pull factor back at the heart of our border protection arrangements, which of course is the product that the people smugglers want to sell.</p><p>Why did Bill Shorten move amendments yesterday? Because, having failed to ask for security advice from our national security agencies and with a failed gag motion in the Senate in December last year, he convinced his Labor senators in this chamber to support legislation which, he had to admit in the end, would have put our border security arrangements at serious, serious risk. Let me just say that the ALP amendments that were passed by Labor, the Greens and the crossbench in the House of Representatives yesterday still leave Australia exposed.</p><p>Here are some of the kinds of people the minister would be forced to bring to Australia on the say so of doctors under the Labor amendments: people charged with bad conduct but not convicted of offences under foreign laws or convicted but sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. Plenty of countries hand down lenient sentences for things like beating your wife or paedophilia, if they hand down any sentence at all. It is very hard to convict people of things like rape in some countries because women's testimony is worth much less than that of men. A person charged but not sentenced for, say, murder or paedophilia on Nauru will not be caught by the exemption. Australian security agencies may be well aware of a person engaging in paedophilia on Nauru but the person need not have been charged or sentenced.</p><p>The upshot is that, as a result of Bill Shorten's bill—and it will be on his head—rapists, murderers and paedophiles will still get a free pass into this country. Bill Shorten should be ashamed of himself. It includes people involved in criminal organisations. A person may be a member of a criminal drug-dealing gang, for example. It includes people reasonably suspected of people smuggling. These are all people that would be forced onto Australia courtesy of legislation that Labor is seeking to ram through the Senate. It includes people whose general past conduct shows they are not of good character. For example, it includes people who consort with criminals, people whose bad conduct is not criminalised in the relevant home jurisdiction, people who have been convicted of a lot of low-level offences, people who have been fighting guards in Nauru or Manus, people who have touched up nurses, people who have threatened violence and people who have bragged about going into crime and drug dealing when they get to Australia.</p><p>These are the people that the Labor Party, together with the Greens, wants to bring into Australia. It includes people who have incited racial discord on Nauru or Manus and people who pose a risk of doing the following in Australia: engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia; or vilify a segment of the Australian community; or incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community; or represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, that community or segment, or in any other way.</p><p>So the Australian people can now see the cockiness of Bill Shorten; they can see his arrogance, as well as his recklessness and his absolute weakness in standing up for our national interests. Bill Shorten has not learned from the failures of the Rudd Labor government. Kevin Rudd thought that he could be tough and soft at the same time. Of course, the disastrous results were there for all to see: 1,200 deaths at sea. Labor are at it again. This time they don't even want to wait for an election.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Macdonald, a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr President, you haven't dealt with the motion allowing committees to meet. I just walked outside and it does seem that there are committees meeting. Is there—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>My advice—having briefly discussed this with the Clerk, because the motion was moved prior to us being able to deal with these matters this morning—is that the convention in the Senate is that, as long as permission is granted for the committees to meet sometime today, that is valid.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr President, on the—</p><p class="italic">Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>It is a reasonable point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>If we don't get to that today, which, according to Senator Collins's program, we won't, then all the meetings that are happening are invalid?</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Mr President, before you address this issue, can I just indicate, so that it's clear for Senator Macdonald, that the opposition will provide leave for any important matters such as that that you highlight.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>That's not what your motion said.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Macdonald, that's an important point of order. My advice is: as long as it is granted today. I haven't yet sought advice on the occasion that we did not get to it by 7.20 pm, when the Senate adjourns. However, I understand that leave will be granted to deal with it at some point today, which will cover the provision you raise. So if that addresses that particular—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>That's not what the motion—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>All I can do is take what Senator Collins has said, in that leave will be granted. Of course, any senator can object to that. We will return to this particular debate.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-02-13.3.2) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - in order to let another vote take place.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the motion circulated in the chamber, with respect to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be agreed to without amendment or debate.*
-
-
|