Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail — 27th Jun 2012

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2012-06-27#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-20 09:50:45	Title Description ~~The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10) to agree to the bill as amended.~~ ~~This means that the the bill can now progress to the [third reading stage](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html).~~ ~~_Background to Bill_~~ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision 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 to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. ~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10) to agree to the bill as amended. This means that the the bill can now progress to the [third reading stage](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html). _Background to Bill_ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision 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=) [2011] 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 to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law. References
representatives vote 2012-06-27#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:21:03	Title Description ~~The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10 motion] to agree to the bill as amended.~~ ~~This means that the the bill can now progress to the [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html third reading stage].~~ ~~''Background to Bill''~~ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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 offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. ~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.~~ ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10) to agree to the bill as amended. This means that the the bill can now progress to the [third reading stage](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html). _Background to Bill_ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision 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 to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law. References
representatives vote 2012-06-27#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:52	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10 motion] to agree to the bill as amended. This means that the the bill can now progress to the [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html third reading stage]. ''Background to Bill'' The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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] The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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 offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[2] It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law. 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]. * [2] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].
representatives vote 2012-06-27#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-24 11:30:25	Title Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10 motion] to agree to the bill as amended. This means that the the bill can now progress to the [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html third reading stage]. <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives. </p> ''Background to Bill'' ~~<p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment. </p>~~ The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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] ~~<p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p>~~ <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[2] It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. ~~<p><b>Qualifiers</b></p>~~ <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p> 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]. * [2] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].
representatives vote 2012-06-27#5 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-22 16:40:11	Title Description <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives. </p> <p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. <p><b>Qualifiers</b></p> <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p>
representatives vote 2012-06-27#5 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-22 14:23:01	Title Description <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives. </p> <p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. <p><b>Qualifiers</b></p> <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p>
representatives vote 2012-06-27#5 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-20 07:24:55	Title ~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail~~ Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail Description ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p>This bill began at around 2 o'clock this afternoon. We have been debating this for close to six hours. The member for Lyne has moved his bill, the member for Cook's amendment has been dealt with and defeated, the member for Denison's amendment has been dealt with and passed, and now there is absolutely no excuse why the government would not introduce this bill into the Senate tomorrow to be dealt with.</p> <p>I place on record that the opposition expects the government to introduce this bill in the Senate tomorrow to be dealt with, and if they do not it will mean that they were never fair dinkum—that it was just another stunt. I also place on record that the opposition will do whatever is required to facilitate that debate being held in the Senate tomorrow and being concluded. We will facilitate that debate, we will not stand in the way of the government introducing this bill into the Senate and having it debated. We might well, of course, speak to these bills as we oppose the Malaysian solution with every fibre in our being—particularly for the reasons outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. But I think that the shadow Treasurer put it very well to the House tonight.</p> <p>I would ask every Labor member of good conscience—and there are some—to search those consciences tonight and realise what they are doing if they support the Malaysian solution through the parliament tomorrow, and they will hang their heads in shame. The next time boats attempt to get to Australia and meet tragedy, if they are full of women and children, it will be on the heads of the government for pursuing the Malaysian solution—</p> <p class="speaker">Laurie Ferguson</p> <p>You! You!</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ ~~<p>knowing the outcome of this means women and children being the gold standard for people smugglers in the future.</p>~~ <p>There are good members on the Labor side of the House. Daryl Melham is one of them, and there are others: Laurie Ferguson is one of them, Melissa Parke is another. They should be searching their consciences and putting the pressure on the government tomorrow on this issue.</p> <p>I put it to the government—I dare the government—to introduce this bill into the Senate tomorrow. The opposition will not stand in its way and will see it through to its conclusion and a vote tomorrow in the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p> <p>I can assure all members that this bill will be introduced into the Senate tomorrow and debated to conclusion. The Prime Minister's office has already been in contact with the opposition and the crossbenches in the Senate to indicate that that is the case. And I suspect that the Manager of Opposition Business, with all this bluster, knows that is the case. We have seen extraordinary hypocrisy—</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Members</p> ~~<p>Opposition members interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ <p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p> <p>No more extraordinary than the contribution by the Manager of Opposition Business. The debates and votes that we have had, the divisions where they have sat against concluding the debate in this House, where they voted against the negation of the adjournment debate—which would have concluded the debate at 7 pm—would have meant that not only could we not consider it in the Senate but it would have been back here in the House tomorrow. That was their position an hour ago. They cannot keep a consistent position for a minute, let alone an hour.</p> <p>So let us get real about this. The Manager of Opposition Business just indicated that it would be our responsibility if children were put on boats because they would not be sent to Malaysia. The previous speaker from the opposition, the shadow Treasurer, said that kids would be sent to Malaysia. The inconsistency in their position is extraordinary. I have been in this place since 1996. I was here when the <i>Tampa</i> came in. I have been here during the entire period of the former government. I was here for 'children overboard'. I was here for all of those events. What we have had here is sanctimonious nonsense from those opposite. The fact is that the government has a position on the table. It provides a real solution—not an easy one, but a real solution and a real opportunity to go forward. It is being done on the advice of the experts—people like Andrew Metcalfe. People like Andrew Metcalfe have briefed us in meetings we are not allowed to talk about.</p> ~~<p>Government members interjecting —</p>~~ <p>And them. The experts have said this is the best way forward. So do I find it easy? No, I do not—on a personal level, not at all. It runs counter to a whole range of things I have said over a long period of time. But let me tell you: I am not prepared to be a cabinet minister in a government and say, 'I was given advice by the experts and I chose an easy option.'</p> ~~<p class="italic">Mr Schultz interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>The member for Hume is out of his place.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p>~~ <p>So this debate will be concluded in this House tonight. The arrangements and the deals from those opposite have been on the table and off the table. The inconsistency in them voting against the Wilkie amendment is just extraordinary—the position that we saw.</p> ~~<p class="italic">Mr Bowen interjecting—</p>~~ <p>Earlier on they were holding press conferences saying it was a terrific idea. The sorts of positions that have been put forward are just extraordinary. The government's position is that this is now being concluded. The House of Representatives—the people's House and people's chamber, democratically elected—will be determining a final position over the next few minutes. My request to the opposition is to put politics aside, vote for it, vote for it in the Senate and give it a go. What is the worst that can happen for those opposite politically? The worst that can happen for them politically is that it works. That is the attitude they bring to this debate, which is why people should support this legislation. I congratulate the member for Lyne on his initiative in advancing this legislation, which will now go through the House.</p> ~~<p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called, the bells being rung and an incident having occurred in the chamber—</i></p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Honourable members interjecting—</p>~~ <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p> <p>Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: is it in order for the Labor Party to be bullying the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from the other side of the chamber during the counting of the division, shouting at the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from the front bench as well? I would ask you to bring the chamber to order.</p> ~~<p class="italic">Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ <p>Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! We have not actually locked the doors. Individuals, this has been a very terse debate, and up until now I think the House has actually held itself in incredibly good stead. I would hate it to be spoilt at this late hour by a former occupant of the chair. The member for Sturt might query who is bullying who in this place. I also remind individuals that a member's vote is privileged. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.</p> <p> The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives. </p> <p> Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>. <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011"><i>Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</i></a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate ">28 June 2012</a>. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>. <p><b>Qualifiers</b></p> <p>This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. </p>

Change

Division

representatives vote 2012-06-27#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-20 09:50:45

Title

Description

~~The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10) to agree to the bill as amended.~~
~~This means that the the bill can now progress to the [third reading stage](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html).~~
~~_Background to Bill_~~
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision 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 to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10) to agree to the bill as amended.
This means that the the bill can now progress to the [third reading stage](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html).
_Background to Bill_
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision 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=) [2011] 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 to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.
References

representatives vote 2012-06-27#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:03

Title

Description

~~The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10 motion] to agree to the bill as amended.~~
~~This means that the the bill can now progress to the [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html third reading stage].~~
~~''Background to Bill''~~
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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 offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
~~By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.~~
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10) to agree to the bill as amended.
This means that the the bill can now progress to the [third reading stage](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html).
_Background to Bill_
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [Rob Oakeshott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives) in response to the High Court's decision 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 to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747).) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [Bali Process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process) into domestic law.
References

representatives vote 2012-06-27#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:52

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10 motion] to agree to the bill as amended.
This means that the the bill can now progress to the [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html third reading stage].
''Background to Bill''
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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]
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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 offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[2] It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].) It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.
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].
* [2] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].

representatives vote 2012-06-27#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-24 11:30:25

Title

Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail
Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-27.113.10 motion] to agree to the bill as amended.
This means that the the bill can now progress to the [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html third reading stage].
The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives.
''Background to Bill''
~~ Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment. ~~
The bill was introduced by Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives Rob Oakeshott] in response to the High Court's decision 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]
~~Summary of debate in Parliament~~
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.[2] It also amends 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. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Process Bali Process] into domestic law.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>.
~~Qualifiers~~
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees. 
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].
* [2] More information about this bill and context can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4747 here].

representatives vote 2012-06-27#5

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-22 16:40:11

Title

Description

The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives.
Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment.
Summary of debate in Parliament
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>.
Qualifiers
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.

representatives vote 2012-06-27#5

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-22 14:23:01

Title

Description

The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives.
Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment.
Summary of debate in Parliament
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>.
Qualifiers
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.

representatives vote 2012-06-27#5

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-20 07:24:55

Title

~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail~~
Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail

Description

~~Christopher Pyne~~
This bill began at around 2 o'clock this afternoon. We have been debating this for close to six hours. The member for Lyne has moved his bill, the member for Cook's amendment has been dealt with and defeated, the member for Denison's amendment has been dealt with and passed, and now there is absolutely no excuse why the government would not introduce this bill into the Senate tomorrow to be dealt with.
I place on record that the opposition expects the government to introduce this bill in the Senate tomorrow to be dealt with, and if they do not it will mean that they were never fair dinkum—that it was just another stunt. I also place on record that the opposition will do whatever is required to facilitate that debate being held in the Senate tomorrow and being concluded. We will facilitate that debate, we will not stand in the way of the government introducing this bill into the Senate and having it debated. We might well, of course, speak to these bills as we oppose the Malaysian solution with every fibre in our being—particularly for the reasons outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. But I think that the shadow Treasurer put it very well to the House tonight.
I would ask every Labor member of good conscience—and there are some—to search those consciences tonight and realise what they are doing if they support the Malaysian solution through the parliament tomorrow, and they will hang their heads in shame. The next time boats attempt to get to Australia and meet tragedy, if they are full of women and children, it will be on the heads of the government for pursuing the Malaysian solution—
Laurie Ferguson
You! You!
~~Christopher Pyne~~
~~knowing the outcome of this means women and children being the gold standard for people smugglers in the future.~~
There are good members on the Labor side of the House. Daryl Melham is one of them, and there are others: Laurie Ferguson is one of them, Melissa Parke is another. They should be searching their consciences and putting the pressure on the government tomorrow on this issue.
I put it to the government—I dare the government—to introduce this bill into the Senate tomorrow. The opposition will not stand in its way and will see it through to its conclusion and a vote tomorrow in the Senate.
Anthony Albanese
I can assure all members that this bill will be introduced into the Senate tomorrow and debated to conclusion. The Prime Minister's office has already been in contact with the opposition and the crossbenches in the Senate to indicate that that is the case. And I suspect that the Manager of Opposition Business, with all this bluster, knows that is the case. We have seen extraordinary hypocrisy—
Opposition Members
~~Opposition members interjecting—~~
~~Anna Burke~~
Order!
Anthony Albanese
No more extraordinary than the contribution by the Manager of Opposition Business. The debates and votes that we have had, the divisions where they have sat against concluding the debate in this House, where they voted against the negation of the adjournment debate—which would have concluded the debate at 7 pm—would have meant that not only could we not consider it in the Senate but it would have been back here in the House tomorrow. That was their position an hour ago. They cannot keep a consistent position for a minute, let alone an hour.
So let us get real about this. The Manager of Opposition Business just indicated that it would be our responsibility if children were put on boats because they would not be sent to Malaysia. The previous speaker from the opposition, the shadow Treasurer, said that kids would be sent to Malaysia. The inconsistency in their position is extraordinary. I have been in this place since 1996. I was here when the Tampa came in. I have been here during the entire period of the former government. I was here for 'children overboard'. I was here for all of those events. What we have had here is sanctimonious nonsense from those opposite. The fact is that the government has a position on the table. It provides a real solution—not an easy one, but a real solution and a real opportunity to go forward. It is being done on the advice of the experts—people like Andrew Metcalfe. People like Andrew Metcalfe have briefed us in meetings we are not allowed to talk about.
~~Government members interjecting —~~
And them. The experts have said this is the best way forward. So do I find it easy? No, I do not—on a personal level, not at all. It runs counter to a whole range of things I have said over a long period of time. But let me tell you: I am not prepared to be a cabinet minister in a government and say, 'I was given advice by the experts and I chose an easy option.'
~~Mr Schultz interjecting—~~
~~Anna Burke~~
~~The member for Hume is out of his place.~~
~~Anthony Albanese~~
So this debate will be concluded in this House tonight. The arrangements and the deals from those opposite have been on the table and off the table. The inconsistency in them voting against the Wilkie amendment is just extraordinary—the position that we saw.
~~Mr Bowen interjecting—~~
Earlier on they were holding press conferences saying it was a terrific idea. The sorts of positions that have been put forward are just extraordinary. The government's position is that this is now being concluded. The House of Representatives—the people's House and people's chamber, democratically elected—will be determining a final position over the next few minutes. My request to the opposition is to put politics aside, vote for it, vote for it in the Senate and give it a go. What is the worst that can happen for those opposite politically? The worst that can happen for them politically is that it works. That is the attitude they bring to this debate, which is why people should support this legislation. I congratulate the member for Lyne on his initiative in advancing this legislation, which will now go through the House.
~~ A division having been called, the bells being rung and an incident having occurred in the chamber—~~
~~Honourable members interjecting—~~
Christopher Pyne
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: is it in order for the Labor Party to be bullying the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from the other side of the chamber during the counting of the division, shouting at the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from the front bench as well? I would ask you to bring the chamber to order.
~~Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—~~
~~Anna Burke~~
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! We have not actually locked the doors. Individuals, this has been a very terse debate, and up until now I think the House has actually held itself in incredibly good stead. I would hate it to be spoilt at this late hour by a former occupant of the chair. The member for Sturt might query who is bullying who in this place. I also remind individuals that a member's vote is privileged. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to.
The aye votes succeeded in passing a motion that the amended Bill be agreed upon. This means that the the Bill was able to progress to the <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html">Third Reading</a> in the House of Representatives.
Someone who votes aye in this division supports the main idea of this Bill. The majority voted aye in this amendment.
Summary of debate in Parliament
This Bill was sponsored by Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Oakeshott&mpc=Lyne&house=representatives">Oakeshott</a>.
Background to Bill
The Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's decision in <a href="http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011">Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011]</a>, which overruled the Labor Government's <a href="http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154">'Malaysia Solution'</a>. The Bill would have given the Government to implement offshore processing for asylum seekers. This Bill did not become law as it failed to pass in the Second Reading stage in the Senate on <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-06-28&number=3&house=senate
">28 June 2012</a>.
 More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4747_ems_d54d1bdd-091a-422c-96d0-f7a6186c9e45/upload_pdf/371445reprem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">here</a>.
Qualifiers
This vote is difficult to determine who is voting for or against a stricter policy regarding asylum seekers. This is because the no votes could be voting against the Bali Process specifically, not a stricter system with regards to refugees.