Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading — 16th Aug 2012

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:53	Title Description The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island". ~~Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful.~~ ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].) To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2) proposed by Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate) that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island". Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful. _Background to the bill_ The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22) was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218).) To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking [offshore entry persons](http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php) to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [Christmas Island](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island), and alters the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:51	Title Description The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island". Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful. ''Background to the bill'' The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[1] The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].) To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-21 16:43:09	Title Description The majority voted against part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island". Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion. The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island". Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful. ''Background to the bill'' The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[1] To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. References * [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-21 16:42:25	Title Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Coalition policies (a) Description The majority voted against part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island". Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion. <p> This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote></p> ''Background to the bill'' <p> Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.</p> The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[1] ~~<b>Background to the Bill</b>~~ <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act. <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p> References * [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:58:06	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote></p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.</p> <b>Background to the Bill</b> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:55:59	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote></p> ~~<p> Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this amendment.</p>~~ <p> Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.</p> <b>Background to the Bill</b> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:55:47	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote></p> <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote></p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports this view. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this amendment.</p> <b>Background to the Bill</b> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:52:33	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island.</blockquote></p> ~~<p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p>~~ <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote></p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports this view. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> <b>Background to the Bill</b> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#2 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:51:45	Title ~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading~~ Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading Description ~~<p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p>~~ <p>Prior to question time, I had been speaking on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012. In closing, I have some comments to add by way of context. We get so rapidly lost in this debate and it has been chased down into a dark corner. Once in a while it is worth pulling back to take a look at what is happening in the world that we are part of. In 2010, the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australian waters by boat was about 6½ thousand. But that very same year, the UNHCR estimates that there were 43.7 million forcibly displaced people in the world. That includes refugees but also internally displaced persons—those in camps or those on the move. I repeat: 43.7 million people are forcibly displaced in the world. So 0.014 per cent of them came to Australia by boat. After visiting Australia this February, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, urged Australians to appreciate the scale of the humanitarian crisis that they are trying to contend with and the very small—not inconsequential but, on a global scale, small—nature of our role in it. Against the setting of 57,000 people reaching Malta and Italy by boat in 2011 and another 100,000 asylum seekers reaching Yemen by boat, Mr Guterres said:</p> ~~<p class="italic">It is very difficult for me as High Commissioner, who has to deal with the whole world, to be convinced that 6000 is a very important problem.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">I understand that in the psychology of Australia, the collective psychology, this is an important problem … but you need to understand also the global perspective.</p>~~ <p>He called for moral leadership and he said the risk of a populist approach by politicians was that vastly exaggerated fears 'all too easily manifest into statements and acts of xenophobia against foreigners—be they refugees, migrants or others'. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?</p> <p>It is not to say that for these 6,000 people the high commissioner referred we are not primarily responsible, once they start making their way here, to make sure that they are protected, to make sure that they are not risking their lives. And if they have set out on these voyages in unseaworthy vessels with crews who are not always competent to pilot the boats in the first place, it is a primary responsibility to make sure that they are not abandoned, that distress calls are relayed immediately to emergency services, in this case the naval personnel, both here and in international waters and the Indonesian authorities. That is our responsibility. We have put a number of propositions forward. Senators Milne and Hanson-Young have detailed exhaustively what we believe should happen now without recourse to this parliament, without even being involved in how degraded this debate has become, because these things do not require legislative effect to happen now and we can be providing much safer pathways for people who do make these voyages.</p> <p>While the government jumps on implementing the findings of the Houston report, or the very narrow interpretation of what those findings were, I want to recall that six months ago the inquiry into the immigration detention system made a number of findings that have simply been ignored and set aside. Just in March this year, that inquiry recommended that asylum seekers be detained for no longer than 90 days. And a majority of the joint committee found that asylum seekers who pass initial health, character and security checks should immediately get a bridging visa or be moved into community detention. One of the reasons for those findings is that indefinite detention is damaging to mental health. People are killing themselves in our immigration detention system; they are self-harming; they are sewing their lips together. They have nowhere to go, they have no idea when they are going to be released, and it is making them mentally ill. This is now a very well understood, if we are concerned about saving lives. I will not throw accusations across the chamber that members on this side do not care. Everybody cares. Nobody wants to see people drowning. I think one of the things we should have done a long time to ago was to turn down the temperature in here. Nobody wants people to die, but nor do I think anybody in their right mind wants people to go out of their minds in indefinite detention behind barbed wire, for no crime, for undetermined periods of time—and it could be forever—as a deterrent effect for those left behind. It is not only morally bankrupt, but the logic is not there. It is not going to work.</p> <p>The question that I will rest my contribution on is: what happens in six or eight months time when we have got people behind cages in Nauru, on Manus and around the region, and the boats keep coming? What is going to happen when the bumper sticker that Mr Abbott has been trading under falls off the bumper? We will then realise that we have been having the wrong debate. We must protect people who try and make these voyages. We must remember why they make them in the first place. Most of all, we have to lose this delusion that locking people up is going to be more of a deterrent than the things that they are fleeing.</p> <p>This debate will have to be reopened, it will have to be resumed, if this bill does not fix anything. We have stumbled down a very dark rabbit hole on a false premise that border security is somehow related to how we treat desperate people fleeing desperate circumstances. It is not just about upholding international legal obligations, although of course that is very important. But if it is not going to work then why are we doing it? If it is just a headline for today or tomorrow then not only are we selling out and doing an enormous disservice to the people who come here but it is doing damage to how we perceive ourselves as a country. We are better than this. I will be voting against this bill when we put it to the vote later this afternoon.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>~~ <p>I get sick and tired of feigned emotion like that exhibited by the lead speaker for the Greens and of the illogical arguments of the Greens and, prior to today, of the Labor Party as well. While there are some Greens senators here, can I ask them a question. We take in a certain number of refugees. We can argue all day about whether it should be 13,000 or 20,000 or 27,000 or five million, but whatever it is we have an upward figure. The question is: what do you say to one of the 250,000 refugees living in a squalid refugee camp in Breidjing in Chad when they are next on the list? They are following the UNHCR rules, they have been determined to be refugees by the UNHCR and they are sitting in that squalid camp awaiting their turn, but every time some wealthy person who can pay $10,000 a head—the sort of money people in a refugee camp in Chad could not even dream of—comes out of the system and lands illegally in Australia, that person languishing in the squalid camp in Chad has to wait another year.</p> <p>Senator Ludlam was talking about a fair go, that Australia is recognised for a fair go. What is fair to those living in those squalid refugee camps in Chad if every time someone comes here ignoring the system, jumping the queue—and I will say it and say it again—then someone else suffers? That is why I have always said—and I have said this many a time before—we have to discourage those who would enter Australia illegally, jumping the queue, and be fair to all of those who have been determined to be genuine refugees. These people coming by boats are not refugees; they are asylum seekers. Their determination, their status, has yet to be determined by either Australia or the UNHCR. But there are people who have been determined as being genuine refugees living in squalid camps all over the world, waiting their turn to get to the promised land of Australia or New Zealand or Canada or Britain or the United States. But every time we take someone out of the system then they have to wait longer.</p> <p>I want someone from the Greens to tell me how that is fair, how that is humane. You have certain rules and everybody follows them, and I can tell you that every one of those people in the refugee camps in Chad would be barracking for us. In fact I have to say that at the Brisbane show on the weekend when I was at the LNP booth there, I actually had some of those refugees come up to me and finger-chest me and said, 'You tell Tony Abbott he is right. We had to wait our turn. Everybody should follow the rules.' So that it is why I am here. Please get someone from the Greens. Get Senator Hanson-Young back and let her tell me what is fair about a system where those who have been waiting for five, six and 10 years in squalid camps should be put back because someone has decided to pay a criminal to get them to the top of the queue.</p> <p>There are around 11 million refugees in Australia and the figures change each year. What do the Greens want us to do? Do they want us to look after them all, to take in 11 million? That would be great. I would love to be able to do it. But Australia cannot afford it. This government is going very close to breaking our country already just as the Labor government did in Queensland. It is going to be an even longer time before we can be more generous. I would like to see the Australia's refugee intake go up beyond the 13,000-odd that it currently is, but it does cost money. I know that under the Gillard government we have been wasting money by the bucketload in any number of ways. One of them is in preparing Christmas Island and a dozen other places around Australia as detention camps and employing all of these guards and people to look after them. The budget has already blown out and it would be better, I suggest, put into getting genuine refugees into the system and allowing us to put up the 13,000-odd number. But they have to be paid for and Australia has to be able to afford it. Per capita, Australia does pretty well with its refugee intake.</p> <p>There is a lot more I would like to say on this bill but we are keen to get at least this small step forward through the parliament, so I and others have been asked to restrict our comment and I intend to do that. But I did want to speak to associate myself with the comments made by all of my colleagues on this side. This is not the solution. It is one-third of the solution, one part of three that have been proved to work. The first is offshore processing, which this bill will do, so we support it. But the other two, the temporary protection visas and the turning the boats around where it is safe to do so, should be implemented. I do not think this is going to be as effective as it should be.</p> <p>One thing I do agree with Senator Ludlam on is that we will be back debating this. The Labor Party took six years to admit they were wrong, a humiliating backdown, but at least they are going in the right direction now and that is good. But we will be back here, because it will not work without the other two legs of the three-legged approach to stopping it. I do not have time, but I do not think that it needs me to explain how those three elements actually stopped the flow of illegal immigrants to Australia all those years ago. It worked. Why Ms Gillard was persuaded by the Greens to that policy is distressing—I know why: because she needs their support. To dump that policy that was proved to work just distresses me. We are going back to the Howard years, thankfully, but we are only one-third of the way. We need to do the other two parts and I look forward to the day when we can do that so it does provide a fair go for all of the refugees who unfortunately exist on our planet.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p>~~ <p>The subject matter of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012—people-smuggling, asylum seekers, their humane and fair treatment, the loss of life at sea—presents a complex and diabolical problem. This is not an easy decision to make. I have always preferred the idea of onshore processing. I believe that when people come to our country seeking asylum, we take on the responsibility for their welfare while they are processed. But since late 2001, at least 964 asylum seekers have perished at sea. They are the ones we know about. It is the ultimate tragedy that people who are so desperate have risked everything and lost their lives. We all do not want to see another life lost in this way. If this legislation will go some way towards achieving that aim, then I cannot in good conscience oppose it.</p> <p>What is proposed is far from the ideal option, but it is the one that is before us today. It is a classic Hobson's choice. Right now we have to decide to take it or leave it. The asylum-seeker debate is one fraught with passion and angst. While many of us in this place may have drastically different opinions, I do not believe for a second that any of us do not realise the heavy responsibility that we face today with this legislation. Not one of us wants to see desperate people hurt or abused or damaged further. I will be moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to commission a further report by the expert panel on asylum seekers within 12 months of the commencement of this bill.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p>~~ <p>Senator Xenophon, we already have one amendment before the chair. You can foreshadow your amendment and when Senator Abetz's amendment has been dealt with you will have an opportunity to move your amendment.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p> <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island.</blockquote></p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> <b>Background to the Bill</b> <p> This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in <i> Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship </i> [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the <i> Migration Act 1958 </i> to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the <i> Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 </i> in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The <i> Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 </i> overrides the guardianship obligations under the <i>Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946</i>. </p> <p> More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>

Change

Division

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:53

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".
~~Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful.~~
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].)
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2) proposed by Liberal Senator [Eric Abetz](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate) that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".
Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful.
_Background to the bill_
The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22) was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [_Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query=) () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [Malaysia Solution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration) policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship) and on ABC News [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218).)
To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking [offshore entry persons](http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php) to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [Christmas Island](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island), and alters the _Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946_ in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:51

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".
Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful.
''Background to the bill''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[1]
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].)
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-21 16:43:09

Title

Description

The majority voted against part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".
Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.
The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".
Someone who votes aye supports the motion. Since the majority voted aye, the motion was successful.
''Background to the bill''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[1]
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
* [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-21 16:42:25

Title

Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Coalition policies (a)

Description

The majority voted against part (a) of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-15.142.2 motion] proposed by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz] that the Senate "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".
Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.
This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote>
''Background to the bill''
 Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22 bill] was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in [http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html?query= ''Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship''] [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Solution#Immigration Malaysia Solution] policy.[1]
~~Background to the Bill~~
 This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the  Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the  Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php offshore entry persons] to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island Christmas Island], and alters the ''Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946'' in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>.
References
* [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here].

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:58:06

Title

Description

This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote>
Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:55:59

Title

Description

This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote>
~~ Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this amendment.~~
Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this motion.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:55:47

Title

Description

This is a vote on the motion proposed by Senator Abetz. This motion <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote>
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote>
 Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports this view. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted yes to this amendment.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:52:33

Title

Description

This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island.</blockquote>
~~ Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. ~~
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> "notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island".</blockquote>
 Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports this view. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
Background to the Bill
This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#2

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:51:45

Title

~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading~~
Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading

Description

~~Scott Ludlam~~
Prior to question time, I had been speaking on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012. In closing, I have some comments to add by way of context. We get so rapidly lost in this debate and it has been chased down into a dark corner. Once in a while it is worth pulling back to take a look at what is happening in the world that we are part of. In 2010, the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australian waters by boat was about 6½ thousand. But that very same year, the UNHCR estimates that there were 43.7 million forcibly displaced people in the world. That includes refugees but also internally displaced persons—those in camps or those on the move. I repeat: 43.7 million people are forcibly displaced in the world. So 0.014 per cent of them came to Australia by boat. After visiting Australia this February, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, urged Australians to appreciate the scale of the humanitarian crisis that they are trying to contend with and the very small—not inconsequential but, on a global scale, small—nature of our role in it. Against the setting of 57,000 people reaching Malta and Italy by boat in 2011 and another 100,000 asylum seekers reaching Yemen by boat, Mr Guterres said:
~~It is very difficult for me as High Commissioner, who has to deal with the whole world, to be convinced that 6000 is a very important problem.~~
~~I understand that in the psychology of Australia, the collective psychology, this is an important problem … but you need to understand also the global perspective.~~
He called for moral leadership and he said the risk of a populist approach by politicians was that vastly exaggerated fears 'all too easily manifest into statements and acts of xenophobia against foreigners—be they refugees, migrants or others'. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
It is not to say that for these 6,000 people the high commissioner referred we are not primarily responsible, once they start making their way here, to make sure that they are protected, to make sure that they are not risking their lives. And if they have set out on these voyages in unseaworthy vessels with crews who are not always competent to pilot the boats in the first place, it is a primary responsibility to make sure that they are not abandoned, that distress calls are relayed immediately to emergency services, in this case the naval personnel, both here and in international waters and the Indonesian authorities. That is our responsibility. We have put a number of propositions forward. Senators Milne and Hanson-Young have detailed exhaustively what we believe should happen now without recourse to this parliament, without even being involved in how degraded this debate has become, because these things do not require legislative effect to happen now and we can be providing much safer pathways for people who do make these voyages.
While the government jumps on implementing the findings of the Houston report, or the very narrow interpretation of what those findings were, I want to recall that six months ago the inquiry into the immigration detention system made a number of findings that have simply been ignored and set aside. Just in March this year, that inquiry recommended that asylum seekers be detained for no longer than 90 days. And a majority of the joint committee found that asylum seekers who pass initial health, character and security checks should immediately get a bridging visa or be moved into community detention. One of the reasons for those findings is that indefinite detention is damaging to mental health. People are killing themselves in our immigration detention system; they are self-harming; they are sewing their lips together. They have nowhere to go, they have no idea when they are going to be released, and it is making them mentally ill. This is now a very well understood, if we are concerned about saving lives. I will not throw accusations across the chamber that members on this side do not care. Everybody cares. Nobody wants to see people drowning. I think one of the things we should have done a long time to ago was to turn down the temperature in here. Nobody wants people to die, but nor do I think anybody in their right mind wants people to go out of their minds in indefinite detention behind barbed wire, for no crime, for undetermined periods of time—and it could be forever—as a deterrent effect for those left behind. It is not only morally bankrupt, but the logic is not there. It is not going to work.
The question that I will rest my contribution on is: what happens in six or eight months time when we have got people behind cages in Nauru, on Manus and around the region, and the boats keep coming? What is going to happen when the bumper sticker that Mr Abbott has been trading under falls off the bumper? We will then realise that we have been having the wrong debate. We must protect people who try and make these voyages. We must remember why they make them in the first place. Most of all, we have to lose this delusion that locking people up is going to be more of a deterrent than the things that they are fleeing.
This debate will have to be reopened, it will have to be resumed, if this bill does not fix anything. We have stumbled down a very dark rabbit hole on a false premise that border security is somehow related to how we treat desperate people fleeing desperate circumstances. It is not just about upholding international legal obligations, although of course that is very important. But if it is not going to work then why are we doing it? If it is just a headline for today or tomorrow then not only are we selling out and doing an enormous disservice to the people who come here but it is doing damage to how we perceive ourselves as a country. We are better than this. I will be voting against this bill when we put it to the vote later this afternoon.
~~Ian Macdonald~~
I get sick and tired of feigned emotion like that exhibited by the lead speaker for the Greens and of the illogical arguments of the Greens and, prior to today, of the Labor Party as well. While there are some Greens senators here, can I ask them a question. We take in a certain number of refugees. We can argue all day about whether it should be 13,000 or 20,000 or 27,000 or five million, but whatever it is we have an upward figure. The question is: what do you say to one of the 250,000 refugees living in a squalid refugee camp in Breidjing in Chad when they are next on the list? They are following the UNHCR rules, they have been determined to be refugees by the UNHCR and they are sitting in that squalid camp awaiting their turn, but every time some wealthy person who can pay $10,000 a head—the sort of money people in a refugee camp in Chad could not even dream of—comes out of the system and lands illegally in Australia, that person languishing in the squalid camp in Chad has to wait another year.
Senator Ludlam was talking about a fair go, that Australia is recognised for a fair go. What is fair to those living in those squalid refugee camps in Chad if every time someone comes here ignoring the system, jumping the queue—and I will say it and say it again—then someone else suffers? That is why I have always said—and I have said this many a time before—we have to discourage those who would enter Australia illegally, jumping the queue, and be fair to all of those who have been determined to be genuine refugees. These people coming by boats are not refugees; they are asylum seekers. Their determination, their status, has yet to be determined by either Australia or the UNHCR. But there are people who have been determined as being genuine refugees living in squalid camps all over the world, waiting their turn to get to the promised land of Australia or New Zealand or Canada or Britain or the United States. But every time we take someone out of the system then they have to wait longer.
I want someone from the Greens to tell me how that is fair, how that is humane. You have certain rules and everybody follows them, and I can tell you that every one of those people in the refugee camps in Chad would be barracking for us. In fact I have to say that at the Brisbane show on the weekend when I was at the LNP booth there, I actually had some of those refugees come up to me and finger-chest me and said, 'You tell Tony Abbott he is right. We had to wait our turn. Everybody should follow the rules.' So that it is why I am here. Please get someone from the Greens. Get Senator Hanson-Young back and let her tell me what is fair about a system where those who have been waiting for five, six and 10 years in squalid camps should be put back because someone has decided to pay a criminal to get them to the top of the queue.
There are around 11 million refugees in Australia and the figures change each year. What do the Greens want us to do? Do they want us to look after them all, to take in 11 million? That would be great. I would love to be able to do it. But Australia cannot afford it. This government is going very close to breaking our country already just as the Labor government did in Queensland. It is going to be an even longer time before we can be more generous. I would like to see the Australia's refugee intake go up beyond the 13,000-odd that it currently is, but it does cost money. I know that under the Gillard government we have been wasting money by the bucketload in any number of ways. One of them is in preparing Christmas Island and a dozen other places around Australia as detention camps and employing all of these guards and people to look after them. The budget has already blown out and it would be better, I suggest, put into getting genuine refugees into the system and allowing us to put up the 13,000-odd number. But they have to be paid for and Australia has to be able to afford it. Per capita, Australia does pretty well with its refugee intake.
There is a lot more I would like to say on this bill but we are keen to get at least this small step forward through the parliament, so I and others have been asked to restrict our comment and I intend to do that. But I did want to speak to associate myself with the comments made by all of my colleagues on this side. This is not the solution. It is one-third of the solution, one part of three that have been proved to work. The first is offshore processing, which this bill will do, so we support it. But the other two, the temporary protection visas and the turning the boats around where it is safe to do so, should be implemented. I do not think this is going to be as effective as it should be.
One thing I do agree with Senator Ludlam on is that we will be back debating this. The Labor Party took six years to admit they were wrong, a humiliating backdown, but at least they are going in the right direction now and that is good. But we will be back here, because it will not work without the other two legs of the three-legged approach to stopping it. I do not have time, but I do not think that it needs me to explain how those three elements actually stopped the flow of illegal immigrants to Australia all those years ago. It worked. Why Ms Gillard was persuaded by the Greens to that policy is distressing—I know why: because she needs their support. To dump that policy that was proved to work just distresses me. We are going back to the Howard years, thankfully, but we are only one-third of the way. We need to do the other two parts and I look forward to the day when we can do that so it does provide a fair go for all of the refugees who unfortunately exist on our planet.
~~Nick Xenophon~~
The subject matter of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012—people-smuggling, asylum seekers, their humane and fair treatment, the loss of life at sea—presents a complex and diabolical problem. This is not an easy decision to make. I have always preferred the idea of onshore processing. I believe that when people come to our country seeking asylum, we take on the responsibility for their welfare while they are processed. But since late 2001, at least 964 asylum seekers have perished at sea. They are the ones we know about. It is the ultimate tragedy that people who are so desperate have risked everything and lost their lives. We all do not want to see another life lost in this way. If this legislation will go some way towards achieving that aim, then I cannot in good conscience oppose it.
What is proposed is far from the ideal option, but it is the one that is before us today. It is a classic Hobson's choice. Right now we have to decide to take it or leave it. The asylum-seeker debate is one fraught with passion and angst. While many of us in this place may have drastically different opinions, I do not believe for a second that any of us do not realise the heavy responsibility that we face today with this legislation. Not one of us wants to see desperate people hurt or abused or damaged further. I will be moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to commission a further report by the expert panel on asylum seekers within 12 months of the commencement of this bill.
~~Doug Cameron~~
Senator Xenophon, we already have one amendment before the chair. You can foreshadow your amendment and when Senator Abetz's amendment has been dealt with you will have an opportunity to move your amendment.
Long debate text truncated.
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Abetz. This amendment <blockquote> notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island.</blockquote>
 Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
Background to the Bill
 This Bill was introduced in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] that ruled that offshore processing of asylum seekers was invalid. As a result, this Bill amends the  Migration Act 1958 to replace the framework for allowing the offshore processing of persons for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The Bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island. This Bill also alters the  Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to the making and implementation of any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. The  Migration Legislations Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures Bill 2011 overrides the guardianship obligations under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946.
More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1102135%22"> here</a>. The text of the proposed amendment can be found<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4683%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22abetz,%20sen%20eric%22;rec=0"> here</a>.