Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019; Second Reading — 18th Sep 2019

Change	Division
representatives vote 2019-09-18#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2019-09-20 12:57:13	Title Bills — Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019; Second Reading Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Refuse a second reading Description ~~<p class="speaker">Andrew Giles</p>~~ <p>Labor will be opposing the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019. It is unnecessary and ill considered and would carry with it concerning consequences if enacted into law. I would like to say that these consequences would be unintended ones, but the intransigence of the government in response to Labor's efforts to reach agreement in the national interest in respect of the matters that are the subject of this bill makes that hard to accept.</p> <p>This bill tells us quite a lot about this government. In their seventh year they don't have a plan for Australia and so continually resort to using this parliament, to debasing this parliament, for their own narrow political purposes. It is extraordinary and shameful that Australia's Prime Minister, recently re-elected, would boast of setting tests for Labor rather than talking up his vision for our country. It's telling too that there isn't much worth talking about in that regard. The default setting of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs is division.</p> The majority voted against a motion to amend the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html) "that the bill be read a second time". Reading a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. ### Motion text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "the House: > *> (1) declines to give the bill a second reading;** and* > *> (2) notes** that the:* > *>> (a) Immigration** Minister already has broad discretionary powers to refuse or cancel visas under Section 501 of the Migration Act;* >> *>> (b) Government is yet to make a compelling case** for the powers contained in this bill; and* >> *>> (c) Government has not considered the wider impact of this legislation, particularly on Australia's important relationship with New Zealand and in light of the significant concerns raised about** the disproportionate impact this proposed change will have on New Zealanders".* <p>While it's one thing to pick parliamentary fights with Labor, it's quite another to deliberately and consistently seek to generate fear and division. We saw this in question time today. This is unworthy. I believe Australians have had enough of this, especially when it comes to immigration and its relationship to our safety and security. There are plenty of things for us to argue about in this place—things on which our parties fundamentally differ. Let's argue about our differing visions for our country and not create needless conflict. Let me be very clear: there is no disagreement between Labor and the government when it comes to keeping our communities safe and national security. There is no substantive argument between us over the character test provisions in the Migration Act.</p> <p>Whatever the rhetoric, the simple fact is that the government has not made the case for the additional powers contained in this bill—additional powers that have not been supported by anyone other than the government. In fact, the government haven't even tried to make the case, because it would appear that they are rather more concerned with cheap and nasty politics—using inflammatory language, generating misleading headlines and spreading fear—than getting on with serious responsibilities. Government members should reflect on this and on the signal sent by their obstinate refusal to engage with serious concerns and a genuine approach from Labor seeking to reach agreement on a pathway to realise what I believe are objectives that are shared across this parliament.</p> <p>This bill is opposed by the New Zealand government, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network, the Refugee Council of Australia, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Visa Cancellations Working Group, the UNHCR, Victoria Legal Aid and Oz Kiwi amongst many others. Outside of the government, it is supported by no-one.</p> ~~<p>This bill, which is in identical terms to the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018, which was introduced into this House on 25 October last year, seeks to—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Linda Burney</p>~~ ~~<p>Don't tell me they're trying it on again!</p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Andrew Giles~~
Labor will be opposing the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019. It is unnecessary and ill considered and would carry with it concerning consequences if enacted into law. I would like to say that these consequences would be unintended ones, but the intransigence of the government in response to Labor's efforts to reach agreement in the national interest in respect of the matters that are the subject of this bill makes that hard to accept.
This bill tells us quite a lot about this government. In their seventh year they don't have a plan for Australia and so continually resort to using this parliament, to debasing this parliament, for their own narrow political purposes. It is extraordinary and shameful that Australia's Prime Minister, recently re-elected, would boast of setting tests for Labor rather than talking up his vision for our country. It's telling too that there isn't much worth talking about in that regard. The default setting of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs is division.
The majority voted against a motion to amend the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html) "*that the bill be read a second time*". Reading a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.
### Motion text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"the House:*
>
> *(1) declines to give the bill a second reading; and*
>
> *(2) notes that the:*
>
>> *(a) Immigration Minister already has broad discretionary powers to refuse or cancel visas under Section 501 of the Migration Act;*
>>
>> *(b) Government is yet to make a compelling case for the powers contained in this bill; and*
>>
>> *(c) Government has not considered the wider impact of this legislation, particularly on Australia's important relationship with New Zealand and in light of the significant concerns raised about the disproportionate impact this proposed change will have on New Zealanders".*
While it's one thing to pick parliamentary fights with Labor, it's quite another to deliberately and consistently seek to generate fear and division. We saw this in question time today. This is unworthy. I believe Australians have had enough of this, especially when it comes to immigration and its relationship to our safety and security. There are plenty of things for us to argue about in this place—things on which our parties fundamentally differ. Let's argue about our differing visions for our country and not create needless conflict. Let me be very clear: there is no disagreement between Labor and the government when it comes to keeping our communities safe and national security. There is no substantive argument between us over the character test provisions in the Migration Act.
Whatever the rhetoric, the simple fact is that the government has not made the case for the additional powers contained in this bill—additional powers that have not been supported by anyone other than the government. In fact, the government haven't even tried to make the case, because it would appear that they are rather more concerned with cheap and nasty politics—using inflammatory language, generating misleading headlines and spreading fear—than getting on with serious responsibilities. Government members should reflect on this and on the signal sent by their obstinate refusal to engage with serious concerns and a genuine approach from Labor seeking to reach agreement on a pathway to realise what I believe are objectives that are shared across this parliament.
This bill is opposed by the New Zealand government, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network, the Refugee Council of Australia, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Visa Cancellations Working Group, the UNHCR, Victoria Legal Aid and Oz Kiwi amongst many others. Outside of the government, it is supported by no-one.
~~This bill, which is in identical terms to the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018, which was introduced into this House on 25 October last year, seeks to—~~
~~Linda Burney~~
~~Don't tell me they're trying it on again!~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~