|
senate vote 2024-03-26#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2025-01-17 14:12:52
|
Title
Bills — Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024; Reference to Committee- Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 - Reference to Committee - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-26.101.1):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- In other words, they voted to stop the debate and instead vote on [the question](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2024-03-26/6) straight away.
<p class="italic">That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing on 26 March 2024, of not less than two hours, for the purposes of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name to the motion of Senator Birmingham:</p><p class="italic">Omit all words after "That", substitute 'the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024".</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Consistent with the contingent notice circulated in Senator Waters's name, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of sessional and standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a short contribution.</p><p>It's good to finally be able to speak on this now that the stitch-up is in between Labor and the coalition. It is a stitch-up again in this denial of democracy, this rush to be as cruel as you can as quickly as you can. Sometimes we look in this place and we think, 'Well, maybe Labor's slightly less crap on asylum seekers'—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, withdraw.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>I withdraw. We think that maybe Labor is slightly less woeful and despicable than the coalition when it comes to dealing with people seeking asylum, but then Labor can always surprise us. No matter how far the coalition goes to the right on refugees and asylum seekers, no matter how far they drag Labor to the right, Labor always seems willing to match them. But today we actually see Labor trying to outflank the coalition on cruelty and to go even further to the right than the coalition ever conceived of doing. That's what this bill is. This is Labor engaged in a process of trying to outflank the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, on cruelty to asylum seekers. I've got to tell you, that's a race Labor can never win, because the coalition will always be willing to go one further offensive step beyond that. So this sham inquiry that you're agreeing to for two hours tonight, during Senator Rice's valedictory speech, as disrespectful as that is—be disrespectful to senators, by all means—is disrespectful to the rule of law.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, I remind you that you have moved a contingent motion, so your debate should at least be framed around the issue of suspending the standing orders that would prevent you from making a statement.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>Why is this urgent? This is urgent because, unless we stop this now, this ugly rush to the right of cruelty will just be a continuing play. This is urgent because the coalition and Labor are doing a stitch-up job on legislation that's still warm from the photocopiers, and the only reason they're agreeing to it is that it's brutal and cruel to refugees and asylum seekers. This is urgent because it is essential that we try to turn this chamber and this parliament around and finally have a shred of decency. This is urgent because when will Labor stop? What is the length to which Labor will go in order to try to outflank the coalition on being cruel to refugees and asylum seekers? Today we're getting a sense that there is no limit for the Albanese Labor government as to how brutally cruel they'll be to refugees in this race to the bottom against the coalition. This is urgent because where does it stop? Trying to outflank Peter Dutton on cruelty to asylum seekers is a no-win for Labor, for this chamber and for our country.</p><p>We heard the opposition say today that this motion is going to provide a transparent hearing to scrutinise the government's legislation. How are we going to hear from NGOs and from critical stakeholders in this space to seriously scrutinise around 100 pages of legislation and explanatory memorandum in a sham inquiry that you're trying to ram through in two hours tonight? That's about as transparent as a brick.</p><p>This is yet another example of how, when it comes to being cruel to people seeking asylum, the coalition and Labor just tip their brains out, tip their hearts out, and then just run this ugly race on unfairness and cruelty. This is urgent because we shouldn't be saying to the Australian public that the parliament thinks that a sham two-hour inquiry on legislation that's still warm from the photocopier is in any way doing our job of scrutinising legislation.</p><p>We know what's going to happen. Labor is going to stuff it up again—have it full of legal error, have it challenged in the High Court and then, when it all starts unravelling again, the coalition is going to say, 'Oh, Labor is hopeless and incompetent and terrible'. And they are probably right. Then we're going to have this whole sham process over again. This is an ongoing process of cruelty, let's be clear. This is months and months and months of ongoing cruelty, as Labor keep chasing the coalition to the right with this ugly politics. As Greens senators, as Greens representatives, we say no to that, and we are saying no to that here.</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ayres that the question be put be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|
|
senate vote 2024-03-26#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2025-01-17 14:12:52
|
Title
Bills — Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024; Reference to Committee- Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 - Reference to Committee - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-26.101.1):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- In other words, they voted to stop the debate and instead vote on [the question](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2024-03-26/6) straight away.
<p class="italic">That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing on 26 March 2024, of not less than two hours, for the purposes of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name to the motion of Senator Birmingham:</p><p class="italic">Omit all words after "That", substitute 'the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024".</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Consistent with the contingent notice circulated in Senator Waters's name, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of sessional and standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a short contribution.</p><p>It's good to finally be able to speak on this now that the stitch-up is in between Labor and the coalition. It is a stitch-up again in this denial of democracy, this rush to be as cruel as you can as quickly as you can. Sometimes we look in this place and we think, 'Well, maybe Labor's slightly less crap on asylum seekers'—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, withdraw.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>I withdraw. We think that maybe Labor is slightly less woeful and despicable than the coalition when it comes to dealing with people seeking asylum, but then Labor can always surprise us. No matter how far the coalition goes to the right on refugees and asylum seekers, no matter how far they drag Labor to the right, Labor always seems willing to match them. But today we actually see Labor trying to outflank the coalition on cruelty and to go even further to the right than the coalition ever conceived of doing. That's what this bill is. This is Labor engaged in a process of trying to outflank the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, on cruelty to asylum seekers. I've got to tell you, that's a race Labor can never win, because the coalition will always be willing to go one further offensive step beyond that. So this sham inquiry that you're agreeing to for two hours tonight, during Senator Rice's valedictory speech, as disrespectful as that is—be disrespectful to senators, by all means—is disrespectful to the rule of law.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, I remind you that you have moved a contingent motion, so your debate should at least be framed around the issue of suspending the standing orders that would prevent you from making a statement.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>Why is this urgent? This is urgent because, unless we stop this now, this ugly rush to the right of cruelty will just be a continuing play. This is urgent because the coalition and Labor are doing a stitch-up job on legislation that's still warm from the photocopiers, and the only reason they're agreeing to it is that it's brutal and cruel to refugees and asylum seekers. This is urgent because it is essential that we try to turn this chamber and this parliament around and finally have a shred of decency. This is urgent because when will Labor stop? What is the length to which Labor will go in order to try to outflank the coalition on being cruel to refugees and asylum seekers? Today we're getting a sense that there is no limit for the Albanese Labor government as to how brutally cruel they'll be to refugees in this race to the bottom against the coalition. This is urgent because where does it stop? Trying to outflank Peter Dutton on cruelty to asylum seekers is a no-win for Labor, for this chamber and for our country.</p><p>We heard the opposition say today that this motion is going to provide a transparent hearing to scrutinise the government's legislation. How are we going to hear from NGOs and from critical stakeholders in this space to seriously scrutinise around 100 pages of legislation and explanatory memorandum in a sham inquiry that you're trying to ram through in two hours tonight? That's about as transparent as a brick.</p><p>This is yet another example of how, when it comes to being cruel to people seeking asylum, the coalition and Labor just tip their brains out, tip their hearts out, and then just run this ugly race on unfairness and cruelty. This is urgent because we shouldn't be saying to the Australian public that the parliament thinks that a sham two-hour inquiry on legislation that's still warm from the photocopier is in any way doing our job of scrutinising legislation.</p><p>We know what's going to happen. Labor is going to stuff it up again—have it full of legal error, have it challenged in the High Court and then, when it all starts unravelling again, the coalition is going to say, 'Oh, Labor is hopeless and incompetent and terrible'. And they are probably right. Then we're going to have this whole sham process over again. This is an ongoing process of cruelty, let's be clear. This is months and months and months of ongoing cruelty, as Labor keep chasing the coalition to the right with this ugly politics. As Greens senators, as Greens representatives, we say no to that, and we are saying no to that here.</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ayres that the question be put be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|