Division Description Changes — Bills — Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011; Second Reading — 25th Nov 2011

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2011-11-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-20 10:35:13	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1) to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1). ) This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). ) ~~The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.~~ ~~_Background to the bill_~~ This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions).(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). ) Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). ) Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).) The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1) to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1). ) This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). ) The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail. _Background to the bill_ The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22) has already passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions).(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). ) Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). ) Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).) References
senate vote 2011-11-25#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:44	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. ) This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. ) ~~The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.~~ ~~''Background to the bill''~~ This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. ) Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. ) Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].) ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1) to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1). ) This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). ) The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail. _Background to the bill_ This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions).(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). ) Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). ) Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).) References
senate vote 2011-11-25#5 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:49	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. ) ~~The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]~~ This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2] This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. ) The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail. ''Background to the bill'' ~~This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3]~~ This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. ) Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5] Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. ) ~~Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6]~~ Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].) References * [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. * [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
senate vote 2011-11-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 09:46:14	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1] This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2] The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail. ''Background to the bill'' This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3] Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5] Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5] Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6] References * [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. * [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
senate vote 2011-11-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 09:38:09	Title Description ~~The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]~~ The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1] This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2] The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail. ''Background to the bill'' This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3] Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5] Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6] References * [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. * [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
senate vote 2011-11-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 09:31:43	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1] This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill also applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2] This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2] The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail. ''Background to the bill'' This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3] Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5] Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6] References * [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. * [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here]. * [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
senate vote 2011-11-25#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 09:30:47	Title Bills — Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011; Second Reading Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 - Second Reading - Read a second time Description ~~<p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>~~ <p>Can I indicate at the outset that the opposition supports these amendments. As a result of discussions between the Attorney-General and myself and an exchange of letters between the Attorney-General and the Leader of the Opposition, we have undertaken both to support the bill and to expedite its passage through the parliament. I will address it very briefly, although I do not propose to take very long to do so.</p> <p>Subdivision A of division 12 of the Migration Act 1958 contains certain prohibitions upon the entry into Australia of a noncitizen in circumstances where the noncitizen does not have a valid visa or is not otherwise entitled to enter into Australia. An issue has arisen in which, in certain proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, as I understand, it is alleged that the claim of a right under the refugee convention and the refugee protocol is sufficient to take a noncitizen beyond the prohibitions in subdivision A of division 12. Therefore, so it is said, on the proper interpretation of those provisions the mere claiming of status under the refugee convention or the refugee protocol is sufficient to enable the noncitizen to escape the operation of those provisions.</p> <p>That has never been the way in which that subdivision of the Migration Act has been understood. The purpose of these amendments is really out of abundant caution to clarify that meaning. In particular, the proposed section 228B(2) provides that, to avoid doubt, a reference to a noncitizen includes a reference to a noncitizen seeking protection or asylum, however described, whether or not Australia has or may have protection obligations in respect of the noncitizen under the refugees convention as amended by the refugees protocol or for any other reason.</p> <p>We agree with the government that it is very important to maintain the integrity of the border protection regime. If it were the case that a claim of right under the refugee convention or the refugee protocol was all it took to circumvent the operation of the Migration Act, then it would be beyond the capacity of Australian migration authorities or, indeed, the Australian Federal Police or any domestic Australian authority to deal with the arrival of unauthorised noncitizens.</p> <p>The effect of these provisions will be to operate from the day on which they receive royal assent, which, I understand, will be sought urgently. They will apply forthwith to all proceedings, including the proceedings to which I have referred in the Supreme Court of Victoria. It has been said, and I anticipate it may be said by the Australian Greens, who I understand oppose these amendments, that they have a retrospective operation. That is not so. It would be a misuse of the term 'retrospective' to say that provisions that apply prospectively but whose commencement applies to existing but yet to be determined proceedings is retrospective in character. In truth, these are clarifying amendments or essentially declaratory amendments which declare the meaning of an existing prohibition in the act to be as it has always been understood to be and, as I said at the start, out of abundant caution to express more fully the legal position to be as it has always been understood to be.</p> <p>The opposition, as I said, supports the amendments.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1] This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill also applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2] The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail. ''Background to the bill'' This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3] Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5] Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6] References * [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. * [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. * [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. * [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. * [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. * [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].

Change

Division

senate vote 2011-11-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-20 10:35:13

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1) to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1). )
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). )
~~The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.~~
~~_Background to the bill_~~
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions).(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). )
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). )
Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).)
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1) to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1). )
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). )
The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.
_Background to the bill_
The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22) has already passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions).(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). )
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). )
Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).)
References

senate vote 2011-11-25#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:44

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. )
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. )
~~The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.~~
~~''Background to the bill''~~
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. )
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. )
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].)
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1) to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1). )
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [prohibition on retrospective criminal laws](http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx). Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [Human Rights Law Centre](http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law) and the [Castan Centre for Human Rights Law](http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/). )
The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.
_Background to the bill_
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [without formal division](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions).(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [here](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html). )
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [Payara case](http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/), which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235). For more, see the [SkepticLawyer](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/). ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [here](http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html). )
Read more about the bill on its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082).(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22).)
References

senate vote 2011-11-25#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:49

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.(Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here]. )
~~The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]~~
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2]
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.(The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law]. )
The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.
''Background to the bill''
~~This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3]~~
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].(Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here]. )
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5]
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.(Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer]. ) Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.(Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here]. )
~~Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6]~~
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].(The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].)
References
* [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here].
* [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].

senate vote 2011-11-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 09:46:14

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2]
The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.
''Background to the bill''
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3]
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5]
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case], which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5]
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6]
References
* [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here].
* [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].

senate vote 2011-11-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 09:38:09

Title

Description

~~The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]~~
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2]
The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.
''Background to the bill''
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3]
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5]
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6]
References
* [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here].
* [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].

senate vote 2011-11-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 09:31:43

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill also applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2]
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2]
The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.
''Background to the bill''
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3]
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5]
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6]
References
* [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here].
* [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].
* [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].

senate vote 2011-11-25#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 09:30:47

Title

Bills — Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011; Second Reading
Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Description

~~George Brandis~~
Can I indicate at the outset that the opposition supports these amendments. As a result of discussions between the Attorney-General and myself and an exchange of letters between the Attorney-General and the Leader of the Opposition, we have undertaken both to support the bill and to expedite its passage through the parliament. I will address it very briefly, although I do not propose to take very long to do so.
Subdivision A of division 12 of the Migration Act 1958 contains certain prohibitions upon the entry into Australia of a noncitizen in circumstances where the noncitizen does not have a valid visa or is not otherwise entitled to enter into Australia. An issue has arisen in which, in certain proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, as I understand, it is alleged that the claim of a right under the refugee convention and the refugee protocol is sufficient to take a noncitizen beyond the prohibitions in subdivision A of division 12. Therefore, so it is said, on the proper interpretation of those provisions the mere claiming of status under the refugee convention or the refugee protocol is sufficient to enable the noncitizen to escape the operation of those provisions.
That has never been the way in which that subdivision of the Migration Act has been understood. The purpose of these amendments is really out of abundant caution to clarify that meaning. In particular, the proposed section 228B(2) provides that, to avoid doubt, a reference to a noncitizen includes a reference to a noncitizen seeking protection or asylum, however described, whether or not Australia has or may have protection obligations in respect of the noncitizen under the refugees convention as amended by the refugees protocol or for any other reason.
We agree with the government that it is very important to maintain the integrity of the border protection regime. If it were the case that a claim of right under the refugee convention or the refugee protocol was all it took to circumvent the operation of the Migration Act, then it would be beyond the capacity of Australian migration authorities or, indeed, the Australian Federal Police or any domestic Australian authority to deal with the arrival of unauthorised noncitizens.
The effect of these provisions will be to operate from the day on which they receive royal assent, which, I understand, will be sought urgently. They will apply forthwith to all proceedings, including the proceedings to which I have referred in the Supreme Court of Victoria. It has been said, and I anticipate it may be said by the Australian Greens, who I understand oppose these amendments, that they have a retrospective operation. That is not so. It would be a misuse of the term 'retrospective' to say that provisions that apply prospectively but whose commencement applies to existing but yet to be determined proceedings is retrospective in character. In truth, these are clarifying amendments or essentially declaratory amendments which declare the meaning of an existing prohibition in the act to be as it has always been understood to be and, as I said at the start, out of abundant caution to express more fully the legal position to be as it has always been understood to be.
The opposition, as I said, supports the amendments.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-25.60.1 motion] to read the bill for a second time.[1]
This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which is to clarify that a non-citizen without any lawful right to enter Australia under domestic law has no lawful right to come to Australia. The bill also applies this clarification retrospectively to 16 December 1999.[2]
The senators will now discuss the bill in more detail.
''Background to the bill''
This bill passed through the House of Representatives with bipartisan support and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#decisions without formal division].[3]
Its introduction into parliament coincided with the [http://www.cdpp.gov.au/case-reports/jeky-payara/ Payara case] in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which concerns an Indonesian man charged with aggravated people smuggling.[4] Paraya pleaded 'not guilty' and argued that asylum-seekers had a right under international and Australian law to come to Australia and seek asylum without a visa. This test case was originally to be heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal on 3 November 2011 but Paraya's solicitor said that it will have to be abandoned if the Senate agrees to pass the bill.[5]
Read more about the bill on its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd082 bills digest].[6]
References
* [1] Read the debate leading up to this division [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-11-25.54.1 here].
* [2] The retrospective application of this bill raises issues relating to the rule of law. In Australia, there is a general [http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Prohibitiononretrospectivecriminallaws.aspx prohibition on retrospective criminal laws]. Read more about whether the retrospective application of this bill is against the rule of law on the [http://www.hrlc.org.au/retrospective-deterring-people-smuggling-bill-violates-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law Human Rights Law Centre] and the [http://castancentre.com/2011/11/09/retrospective-people-smuggling-bill-a-breach-of-our-constitution/ Castan Centre for Human Rights Law].
* [3] Read more about the bill's passage through the House of Representatives [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/antipeople-smuggling-laws-strengthened-20111101-1mtt3.html here].
* [4] Read more about the case [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/legal-challenge-to-people-smuggling-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226125544235 here]. For more, see the [http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/11/03/retrospective-legislation-against-the-rule-of-law/ SkepticLawyer].
* [5] Read more about the response of lawyers to the bill [http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-condemn-migration-law-amendments-20111102-1mvpr.html here].
* [6] The bill's explanatory memoranda are available [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4694%22 here].