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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
representatives vote 2014-09-22#3

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-09 13:47:07

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-09-22.128.1) that the bill be agreed to. This means that the majority agree with the bill in its current form and that the House of Representatives can now consider whether to pass it.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). )
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The bill makes a number of changes to the [Migration Act 1958](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Act_1958), including:
  • - clarifying that it is the applicant and not the Minister who has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence;(A protection claim is a claim for [asylum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum) that is made by [asylum seekers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Asylum_seekers).
  • )
  • - creating grounds to refuse a [protection visa](http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/866.aspx) application when an applicant refuses or fails to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship, and does not have a reasonable explanation for doing so;
  • - creating grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant provides false documents to establish their identity or either destroys or discards identity evidence, or has caused that evidence to be destroyed or discarded;
  • - clarifying that a family member of a protection visa holder cannot be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member if they apply after the initial visa has been granted;
  • - providing that the [Refugee Review Tribunal](http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/About-Us/Our-role-and-services.aspx) (RRT) must draw an unfavourable inference with regard to the credibility of claims or evidence that are raised for the first time before it if the review applicant has no reasonable explanation to justify why those claims and evidence were not raised before the primary decision was made by the [Department of Immigration and Border Protection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Immigration_and_Border_Protection); and
  • - clarifying Australia’s interpretation of the likelihood of harm and the types of harm necessary to engage Australia’s [non-refoulement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement) obligations.(See the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006) for more information about these and other changes made by the bill.
  • )
  • Both the Labor Party and Greens Party have expressed concern about the changes made in this bill.(Read more about the position taken by the opposition in relation to this bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006).)
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-09-22.128.1) that the bill be agreed to. This means that the majority agree with the bill in its current form and that the House of Representatives can now consider whether to pass it. (Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). )
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The bill makes a number of changes to the [Migration Act 1958](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Act_1958), including:
  • - clarifying that it is the applicant and not the Minister who has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence; (A protection claim is a claim for [asylum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum) that is made by [asylum seekers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Asylum_seekers).)
  • - creating grounds to refuse a [protection visa](http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/866.aspx) application when an applicant refuses or fails to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship, and does not have a reasonable explanation for doing so;
  • - creating grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant provides false documents to establish their identity or either destroys or discards identity evidence, or has caused that evidence to be destroyed or discarded;
  • - clarifying that a family member of a protection visa holder cannot be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member if they apply after the initial visa has been granted;
  • - providing that the [Refugee Review Tribunal](http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/About-Us/Our-role-and-services.aspx) (RRT) must draw an unfavourable inference with regard to the credibility of claims or evidence that are raised for the first time before it if the review applicant has no reasonable explanation to justify why those claims and evidence were not raised before the primary decision was made by the [Department of Immigration and Border Protection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Immigration_and_Border_Protection); and
  • - clarifying Australia’s interpretation of the likelihood of harm and the types of harm necessary to engage Australia’s [non-refoulement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement) obligations.
  • (See the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006) for more information about these and other changes made by the bill.)
  • Both the Labor Party and Greens Party have expressed concern about the changes made in this bill. (Read more about the position taken by the opposition in relation to this bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006).)
representatives vote 2014-09-22#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:22:30

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-09-22.128.1 motion] that the bill be agreed to. This means that the majority agree with the bill in its current form and that the House of Representatives can now consider whether to pass it.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. )
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The bill makes a number of changes to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Act_1958 Migration Act 1958], including:
  • * clarifying that it is the applicant and not the Minister who has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence;(A protection claim is a claim for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum asylum] that is made by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Asylum_seekers asylum seekers]. )
  • * creating grounds to refuse a [http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/866.aspx protection visa] application when an applicant refuses or fails to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship, and does not have a reasonable explanation for doing so;
  • * creating grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant provides false documents to establish their identity or either destroys or discards identity evidence, or has caused that evidence to be destroyed or discarded;
  • * clarifying that a family member of a protection visa holder cannot be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member if they apply after the initial visa has been granted;
  • * providing that the [http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/About-Us/Our-role-and-services.aspx Refugee Review Tribunal] (RRT) must draw an unfavourable inference with regard to the credibility of claims or evidence that are raised for the first time before it if the review applicant has no reasonable explanation to justify why those claims and evidence were not raised before the primary decision was made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Immigration_and_Border_Protection Department of Immigration and Border Protection]; and
  • * clarifying Australia’s interpretation of the likelihood of harm and the types of harm necessary to engage Australia’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement non-refoulement] obligations.(See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest] for more information about these and other changes made by the bill. )
  • Both the Labor Party and Greens Party have expressed concern about the changes made in this bill.(Read more about the position taken by the opposition in relation to this bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest].)
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-09-22.128.1) that the bill be agreed to. This means that the majority agree with the bill in its current form and that the House of Representatives can now consider whether to pass it.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). )
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The bill makes a number of changes to the [Migration Act 1958](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Act_1958), including:
  • - clarifying that it is the applicant and not the Minister who has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence;(A protection claim is a claim for [asylum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum) that is made by [asylum seekers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Asylum_seekers).
  • )
  • - creating grounds to refuse a [protection visa](http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/866.aspx) application when an applicant refuses or fails to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship, and does not have a reasonable explanation for doing so;
  • - creating grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant provides false documents to establish their identity or either destroys or discards identity evidence, or has caused that evidence to be destroyed or discarded;
  • - clarifying that a family member of a protection visa holder cannot be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member if they apply after the initial visa has been granted;
  • - providing that the [Refugee Review Tribunal](http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/About-Us/Our-role-and-services.aspx) (RRT) must draw an unfavourable inference with regard to the credibility of claims or evidence that are raised for the first time before it if the review applicant has no reasonable explanation to justify why those claims and evidence were not raised before the primary decision was made by the [Department of Immigration and Border Protection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Immigration_and_Border_Protection); and
  • - clarifying Australia’s interpretation of the likelihood of harm and the types of harm necessary to engage Australia’s [non-refoulement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement) obligations.(See the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006) for more information about these and other changes made by the bill.
  • )
  • Both the Labor Party and Greens Party have expressed concern about the changes made in this bill.(Read more about the position taken by the opposition in relation to this bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006).)
representatives vote 2014-09-22#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:17:02

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-09-22.128.1 motion] that the bill be agreed to. This means that the majority agree with the bill in its current form and that the House of Representatives can now consider whether to pass it.[1]
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-09-22.128.1 motion] that the bill be agreed to. This means that the majority agree with the bill in its current form and that the House of Representatives can now consider whether to pass it.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. )
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The bill makes a number of changes to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Act_1958 Migration Act 1958], including:
  • * clarifying that it is the applicant and not the Minister who has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence;[2]
  • * clarifying that it is the applicant and not the Minister who has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence;(A protection claim is a claim for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum asylum] that is made by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Asylum_seekers asylum seekers]. )
  • * creating grounds to refuse a [http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/866.aspx protection visa] application when an applicant refuses or fails to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship, and does not have a reasonable explanation for doing so;
  • * creating grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant provides false documents to establish their identity or either destroys or discards identity evidence, or has caused that evidence to be destroyed or discarded;
  • * clarifying that a family member of a protection visa holder cannot be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member if they apply after the initial visa has been granted;
  • * providing that the [http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/About-Us/Our-role-and-services.aspx Refugee Review Tribunal] (RRT) must draw an unfavourable inference with regard to the credibility of claims or evidence that are raised for the first time before it if the review applicant has no reasonable explanation to justify why those claims and evidence were not raised before the primary decision was made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Immigration_and_Border_Protection Department of Immigration and Border Protection]; and
  • * clarifying Australia’s interpretation of the likelihood of harm and the types of harm necessary to engage Australia’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement non-refoulement] obligations.[3]
  • * clarifying Australia’s interpretation of the likelihood of harm and the types of harm necessary to engage Australia’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement non-refoulement] obligations.(See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest] for more information about these and other changes made by the bill. )
  • Both the Labor Party and Greens Party have expressed concern about the changes made in this bill.[4]
  • Both the Labor Party and Greens Party have expressed concern about the changes made in this bill.(Read more about the position taken by the opposition in relation to this bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest].)
  • ''References''
  • * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
  • * [2] A protection claim is a claim for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum asylum] that is made by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Asylum_seekers asylum seekers].
  • * [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest] for more information about these and other changes made by the bill.
  • * [4] Read more about the position taken by the opposition in relation to this bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest].
representatives vote 2014-09-22#3

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-01 14:24:15

Title

  • Bills — Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014; Consideration in Detail
  • Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Ross Vasta</p>
  • <p>The question now is that the bill be agreed to.</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-09-22.128.1 motion] that the bill be agreed to. This means that the majority agree with the bill in its current form and that the House of Representatives can now consider whether to pass it.[1]
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The bill makes a number of changes to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Act_1958 Migration Act 1958], including:
  • * clarifying that it is the applicant and not the Minister who has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence;[2]
  • * creating grounds to refuse a [http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/866.aspx protection visa] application when an applicant refuses or fails to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship, and does not have a reasonable explanation for doing so;
  • * creating grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant provides false documents to establish their identity or either destroys or discards identity evidence, or has caused that evidence to be destroyed or discarded;
  • * clarifying that a family member of a protection visa holder cannot be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member if they apply after the initial visa has been granted;
  • * providing that the [http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/About-Us/Our-role-and-services.aspx Refugee Review Tribunal] (RRT) must draw an unfavourable inference with regard to the credibility of claims or evidence that are raised for the first time before it if the review applicant has no reasonable explanation to justify why those claims and evidence were not raised before the primary decision was made by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Immigration_and_Border_Protection Department of Immigration and Border Protection]; and
  • * clarifying Australia’s interpretation of the likelihood of harm and the types of harm necessary to engage Australia’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement non-refoulement] obligations.[3]
  • Both the Labor Party and Greens Party have expressed concern about the changes made in this bill.[4]
  • ''References''
  • * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
  • * [2] A protection claim is a claim for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum asylum] that is made by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Asylum_seekers asylum seekers].
  • * [3] See the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest] for more information about these and other changes made by the bill.
  • * [4] Read more about the position taken by the opposition in relation to this bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd006 bills digest].