Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; in Committee — 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#6 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:53	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will: * be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law * have appropriate accommodation * have access to appropriate physical and mental health services * have access to educational and vocational training programs * be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application * be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions ~~This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.~~ ~~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 [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]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].) To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [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 against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1) proposed by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate). This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will: - be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law - have appropriate accommodation - have access to appropriate physical and mental health services - have access to educational and vocational training programs - be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application - be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country. 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](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). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154).) To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking [offshore entry persons](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#6 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:51	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will: * be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law * have appropriate accommodation * have access to appropriate physical and mental health services * have access to educational and vocational training programs * be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application * be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country. 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 [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] This [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]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].) To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [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]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].
senate vote 2012-08-16#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-24 10:09:05	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will: * be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law * have appropriate accommodation * have access to appropriate physical and mental health services * have access to educational and vocational training programs * be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application * be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country. 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 [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]. * [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].
senate vote 2012-08-16#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-21 15:34:55	Title Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Protection and welfare arrangements Description <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</p> The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful. </p> This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will: * be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law * have appropriate accommodation * have access to appropriate physical and mental health services * have access to educational and vocational training programs * be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application * be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions ~~<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> This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country. <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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p> 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 [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#6 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 11:33:07	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</p> <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#6 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:15:37	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</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><b>Background to the Bill</b></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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#6 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:14:57	Title Description <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li> . This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</p> <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</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><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>
senate vote 2012-08-16#6 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-13 10:12:23	Title ~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; in Committee~~ Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheet 7266:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Schedule 1 , item 25 , page 6 (lines 26 to 29) , omit subsection 198AB ( 2 ), substitute:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(2) The only conditions for the exercise of the power under subsection (1) are that the Minister:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(a) thinks that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country; and</p>~~ <p class="italic">(b) is satisfied that the country has in place appropriate protection and welfare arrangements that are consistent with Australia’s, and the country’s, obligations under international law (including the Refugees Convention).</p> <p class="italic">[protection and welfare arrangements]</p> ~~<p class="italic">Schedule 1 , item 25 , page 7 (after line 13) , after subsection 198AB ( 4 ), insert:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2), the country has in place <i>appropriate protection and welfare arrangements</i> if:</p> <p class="italic">(a) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country include arrangements to ensure that a person taken to the country under section 198AD:</p> <p class="italic">(i) will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law, including by not being subject to arbitrary detention; and</p> ~~<p class="italic">(ii) will have appropriate accommodation; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(iii) will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(iv) will have access to educational and vocational training programs; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(v) will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(vi) in respect of any asylum claim or visa application made by the person, will have access to an appeal mechanism that affords natural justice to the person; and</p>~~ <p class="italic">(b) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</p> <p>These amendments relate directly to the requirements as outlined by the Houston panel that for any refugee or asylum seeker to be transferred to another country by Australia certain protections and operational guidelines must be included. Maybe it is just an oversight that these guidelines were not included in the legislation. We keep hearing from the government that they are implementing the Houston report. The Houston report says very clearly that if we are to transfer refugees to offshore facilities they must have access to a list of basic standards and protections. I will read them. All we are doing is taking the guidelines that the Houston panel requires and that the Houston panel says have to be included and putting them in the legislation. It seems the minister has left them out. It says the country has appropriate protection and welfare arrangements if:</p> ~~<p class="italic">(a) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country include arrangements to ensure that a person taken to the country under section 198AD:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(i) will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law, including by not being subject to arbitrary detention; and</p> <p class="italic">(ii) will have appropriate accommodation; and</p> ~~<p class="italic">(iii) will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(iv) will have access to educational and vocational training programs; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(v) will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application; and</p>~~ <p class="italic">(vi) in respect of any asylum claim or visa application made by the person, will have access to an appeal mechanism that affords natural justice to the person; and</p> <p class="italic">(b) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</p> <p>These are all requirements that the Houston panel says must be included, yet they are not in this legislation. I ask the minister why that is.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p>~~ <p>The government will be opposing these amendments. The proposed amendments being put forward add greater protections than those required by the High Court in relation to existing provisions and the standards imposed by the Greens' amendments are so high and broad that they essentially render a regional processing arrangement unworkable. I reiterate that the arrangements must be agreed between Australia and the proposed designated country and therefore must be appropriate. Those agreements are negotiated in conjunction with and with the participation of the UNHCR and other stakeholders. Parts of the proposed amendment as well are very unclear. For example, it is not clear whether or not the appeal mechanism that affords natural justice as described is a judicial review mechanism or a merits review mechanism. Regardless, the earlier substantive points I made about these amendments rendering a regional processing arrangement unworkable have led us to the conclusion that it would be folly to consider supporting them. Hence we will not.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p>~~ <p>I thank the minister for her answer. These are not the Greens' requirements; these are the requirements of the Houston report, which the government say they will implement. There are 10 unaccompanied minors who have today arrived on Christmas Island who will be among the first people sent to Nauru. Why is the government so reluctant to ensure that these unaccompanied minors have access to these appropriate protection and welfare arrangements specified as essential requirements by the Houston panel?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p>~~ <p>A point of clarification: the Houston report in making these recommendations does not require these matters to be legislated. I have already stated that the arrangements would have to be agreed upon. So in accepting the recommendations of the Houston report we agree as a country to put in place those assurances, but nowhere does it specify that they ought to be legislated, hence they are not part of the legislation. I also want to make the point that, if they were accepted, each of the amendments proposed could potentially give rise to a basis for a potential legal challenge on the basis of what is an appropriate standard. The government is of the view that it is appropriate that the designation itself is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and in that way these agreements and the recommendations we have accepted would be tested fully under the scrutiny of parliament.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p>~~ <p>Thank you, Minister, but, as you have also said, the designation does not require any or all of those documents to be available, so it is anybody's guess as to what will be on the table. Senator Hanson-Young spoke about the recommendation of the Houston panel and, yes, in 3.46 it says very clearly that asylum seekers who have their claims processed in Nauru would be provided with protection and welfare arrangements consistent with Australian and Nauruan responsibilities under international law, including the Refugee Convention, and those protections and welfare would include—and they are all the things in the list that my colleague read out. In fact, it is not about whether the Houston recommendations are in legislation or not. The recommendations say in 7, 8, 9 and 10 that everything has to be consistent with Australian and Nauruan responsibilities or PNG responsibilities under international law. Under international law are the conventions, and we have already heard from the minister that Australia is not upholding its international obligations under the treaties, because we have given several examples where Australia is not going to do that.</p> <p>Specifically in relation to conditions and standards for unaccompanied minors, can the minister clarify that it is true that under this legislation the government is changing something very significant for children who come to Australia unaccompanied? Is it the case at the moment, as a result of the High Court's decision, that the minister shall be the guardian of the person and of the estate in Australia of every non-citizen child who arrives in Australia after the commencement of this act, to the exclusion of the parents and every other guardian of the child, and that the minister shall have, as guardian, the same rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities as a natural guardian of the child would have until the child reaches the age of 18 years or leaves Australian permanently, or until the provisions of this act cease to apply in relation to the child, whichever happens first?</p> <p>Is it not true that the High Court said that, because the minister is the guardian, he has the liabilities that a natural guardian of a child would have and that, in fact, that means currently the government cannot send an unaccompanied child out of Australia while the minister has that guardianship responsibility? Is it not true that in this legislation the government is removing from the minister that guardianship of the child, therefore removing any liabilities or obligations the minister may have as a guardian of that unaccompanied child?</p> <p>Is it the case that, if this legislation passes, the 10 unaccompanied children on Christmas Island will no longer have Minister Bowen as their guardian, that the minister will have no responsibility for them and no liability for them et cetera, that he will no longer have to sign on the dotted line to have them removed from the country, that they will be able to be removed without his signature? He can exercise his discretion, if he wishes, to do something about them, but the fact is the government and the coalition have come here tonight to remove the guardianship responsibilities of the minister from unaccompanied children. As of tonight, if this bill goes through, those 10 unaccompanied children will no longer have a guardian under Australian law. Is that correct?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p>~~ <p>I am getting some advice on the specific point you are making, but first of all I would like to reject outright the assertion you made at the beginning of your statement that Australia was not adhering to its international obligations. I have gone to great pains to explain why that is not the case. I understand that the Greens are of a different view—they have asserted that continually—but we totally reject their claim that we are not adhering to our international obligations.</p> <p>In relation to the impact of the High Court judgement and how that relates to unaccompanied minors, I would like to make a number of points which I think go to the issue you have raised. The majority of the High Court in the Plaintiff M106 case held that the taking of an unaccompanied minor from Australia is unlawful in the absence of the consent in writing of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. The ruling means that no unaccompanied minor can be removed or taken from Australia in the exercise of any power under the Migration Act unless the minister, in his capacity as the statutory guardian, gives consent. This consent would be subject to judicial review.</p> <p>The court also found that any decision the minister made regarding consent would need to be made consistent with the best interests of the child. In practice it would mean that an unaccompanied minor found not to be a refugee could claim it was not in their best interests to be returned to their country of origin and this may be accepted by the courts. The government has stated that this is not sustainable as public policy. In practice, the decision means that the minister has the power that no other parent or guardian in Australia has, which is to prevent the otherwise lawful exercise of removal powers under the Migration Act 1958.</p> <p>In effect, the bill before us reasserts the primacy of the Migration Act with regard to unaccompanied minors and the amendments to the guardianship act will also put beyond doubt that the minister's guardianship ceases when a child is removed from Australia or taken from Australia without a visa or right to return.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p>~~ <p>So the minister has said that the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ceases the minute the child leaves the country and is sent to an offshore detention centre. The whole reason for this is to remove the rights of the child in terms of what they would have had under the existing legislation. Is it the fact that the minister has to decide, as the guardian of the child, to sign off on removal of a child and to send that child offshore—which is appealable in the courts—which will mean that the minister will no longer be their guardian? For the 10 unaccompanied minors on Christmas Island, as of tonight we are getting rid of the guardianship responsibilities of the minister in relation to those 10 children.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p>~~ ~~<p>I refer the senator to paragraph 271 of the explanatory memorandum:</p>~~ <p class="italic">The High Court’s decision does not align with the Government’s policy intention which is that the Minister’s consent under section 6A of the IGOC Act is not required for a noncitizen child to be removed, taken or deported from Australia under the Migration Act. This intention is given effect by item 8 of Schedule 2. As such, this amendment is a consequential amendment as a result of item 8. Subsection 6A(4) is effectively replaced by the amendments to section 8 made by item 8 of Schedule 2.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ <p> This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li> . This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.</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><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>. </p>

Change

Division

senate vote 2012-08-16#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:53

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will:
* be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law
* have appropriate accommodation
* have access to appropriate physical and mental health services
* have access to educational and vocational training programs
* be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application
* be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions
~~This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.~~
~~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 [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]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].)
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [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 against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1) proposed by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will:
- be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law
- have appropriate accommodation
- have access to appropriate physical and mental health services
- have access to educational and vocational training programs
- be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application
- be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions
This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
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](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). Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [here](http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154).)
To this end, the bill amends the _Migration Act 1958_ to replace the existing framework for taking [offshore entry persons](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#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:51

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will:
* be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law
* have appropriate accommodation
* have access to appropriate physical and mental health services
* have access to educational and vocational training programs
* be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application
* be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions
This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
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 [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]
This [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]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].)
To this end, the bill amends the ''Migration Act 1958'' to replace the existing framework for taking [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]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].

senate vote 2012-08-16#6

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-24 10:09:05

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will:
* be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law
* have appropriate accommodation
* have access to appropriate physical and mental health services
* have access to educational and vocational training programs
* be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application
* be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions
This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
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 [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].
* [1] Read more about the decision on Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff_M70/2011_%26_Plaintiff_M106_of_2011_by_his_Litigation_Guardian_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship here] and on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218 here]. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution [http://theconversation.com/malaysia-solution-high-court-ruling-explained-3154 here].

senate vote 2012-08-16#6

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-21 15:34:55

Title

Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Protection and welfare arrangements

Description

 This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-08-16.244.1 amendment] proposed by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
 Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will:
* be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law
* have appropriate accommodation
* have access to appropriate physical and mental health services
* have access to educational and vocational training programs
* be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application
* be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions
~~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.
This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
 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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.
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 [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#6

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 11:33:07

Title

Description

This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#6

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:15:37

Title

Description

This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
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
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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#6

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:14:57

Title

Description

This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li> . This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li><li> will have appropriate accommodation</li><li>will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services</li><li>will have access to educational and vocational training programs</li><li>will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application </li><li>will be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions.</ul> This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.

senate vote 2012-08-16#6

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-13 10:12:23

Title

~~Bills — Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; in Committee~~
Bills - Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012; In Committee

Description

~~Sarah Hanson-Young~~
~~by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheet 7266:~~
~~Schedule 1 , item 25 , page 6 (lines 26 to 29) , omit subsection 198AB ( 2 ), substitute:~~
~~(2) The only conditions for the exercise of the power under subsection (1) are that the Minister:~~
~~(a) thinks that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country; and~~
(b) is satisfied that the country has in place appropriate protection and welfare arrangements that are consistent with Australia’s, and the country’s, obligations under international law (including the Refugees Convention).
[protection and welfare arrangements]
~~Schedule 1 , item 25 , page 7 (after line 13) , after subsection 198AB ( 4 ), insert:~~
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2), the country has in place appropriate protection and welfare arrangements if:
(a) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country include arrangements to ensure that a person taken to the country under section 198AD:
(i) will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law, including by not being subject to arbitrary detention; and
~~(ii) will have appropriate accommodation; and~~
~~(iii) will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services; and~~
~~(iv) will have access to educational and vocational training programs; and~~
~~(v) will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application; and~~
~~(vi) in respect of any asylum claim or visa application made by the person, will have access to an appeal mechanism that affords natural justice to the person; and~~
(b) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
These amendments relate directly to the requirements as outlined by the Houston panel that for any refugee or asylum seeker to be transferred to another country by Australia certain protections and operational guidelines must be included. Maybe it is just an oversight that these guidelines were not included in the legislation. We keep hearing from the government that they are implementing the Houston report. The Houston report says very clearly that if we are to transfer refugees to offshore facilities they must have access to a list of basic standards and protections. I will read them. All we are doing is taking the guidelines that the Houston panel requires and that the Houston panel says have to be included and putting them in the legislation. It seems the minister has left them out. It says the country has appropriate protection and welfare arrangements if:
~~(a) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country include arrangements to ensure that a person taken to the country under section 198AD:~~
(i) will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law, including by not being subject to arbitrary detention; and
(ii) will have appropriate accommodation; and
~~(iii) will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services; and~~
~~(iv) will have access to educational and vocational training programs; and~~
~~(v) will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application; and~~
(vi) in respect of any asylum claim or visa application made by the person, will have access to an appeal mechanism that affords natural justice to the person; and
(b) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
These are all requirements that the Houston panel says must be included, yet they are not in this legislation. I ask the minister why that is.
~~Kate Lundy~~
The government will be opposing these amendments. The proposed amendments being put forward add greater protections than those required by the High Court in relation to existing provisions and the standards imposed by the Greens' amendments are so high and broad that they essentially render a regional processing arrangement unworkable. I reiterate that the arrangements must be agreed between Australia and the proposed designated country and therefore must be appropriate. Those agreements are negotiated in conjunction with and with the participation of the UNHCR and other stakeholders. Parts of the proposed amendment as well are very unclear. For example, it is not clear whether or not the appeal mechanism that affords natural justice as described is a judicial review mechanism or a merits review mechanism. Regardless, the earlier substantive points I made about these amendments rendering a regional processing arrangement unworkable have led us to the conclusion that it would be folly to consider supporting them. Hence we will not.
~~Sarah Hanson-Young~~
I thank the minister for her answer. These are not the Greens' requirements; these are the requirements of the Houston report, which the government say they will implement. There are 10 unaccompanied minors who have today arrived on Christmas Island who will be among the first people sent to Nauru. Why is the government so reluctant to ensure that these unaccompanied minors have access to these appropriate protection and welfare arrangements specified as essential requirements by the Houston panel?
~~Kate Lundy~~
A point of clarification: the Houston report in making these recommendations does not require these matters to be legislated. I have already stated that the arrangements would have to be agreed upon. So in accepting the recommendations of the Houston report we agree as a country to put in place those assurances, but nowhere does it specify that they ought to be legislated, hence they are not part of the legislation. I also want to make the point that, if they were accepted, each of the amendments proposed could potentially give rise to a basis for a potential legal challenge on the basis of what is an appropriate standard. The government is of the view that it is appropriate that the designation itself is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and in that way these agreements and the recommendations we have accepted would be tested fully under the scrutiny of parliament.
~~Christine Milne~~
Thank you, Minister, but, as you have also said, the designation does not require any or all of those documents to be available, so it is anybody's guess as to what will be on the table. Senator Hanson-Young spoke about the recommendation of the Houston panel and, yes, in 3.46 it says very clearly that asylum seekers who have their claims processed in Nauru would be provided with protection and welfare arrangements consistent with Australian and Nauruan responsibilities under international law, including the Refugee Convention, and those protections and welfare would include—and they are all the things in the list that my colleague read out. In fact, it is not about whether the Houston recommendations are in legislation or not. The recommendations say in 7, 8, 9 and 10 that everything has to be consistent with Australian and Nauruan responsibilities or PNG responsibilities under international law. Under international law are the conventions, and we have already heard from the minister that Australia is not upholding its international obligations under the treaties, because we have given several examples where Australia is not going to do that.
Specifically in relation to conditions and standards for unaccompanied minors, can the minister clarify that it is true that under this legislation the government is changing something very significant for children who come to Australia unaccompanied? Is it the case at the moment, as a result of the High Court's decision, that the minister shall be the guardian of the person and of the estate in Australia of every non-citizen child who arrives in Australia after the commencement of this act, to the exclusion of the parents and every other guardian of the child, and that the minister shall have, as guardian, the same rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities as a natural guardian of the child would have until the child reaches the age of 18 years or leaves Australian permanently, or until the provisions of this act cease to apply in relation to the child, whichever happens first?
Is it not true that the High Court said that, because the minister is the guardian, he has the liabilities that a natural guardian of a child would have and that, in fact, that means currently the government cannot send an unaccompanied child out of Australia while the minister has that guardianship responsibility? Is it not true that in this legislation the government is removing from the minister that guardianship of the child, therefore removing any liabilities or obligations the minister may have as a guardian of that unaccompanied child?
Is it the case that, if this legislation passes, the 10 unaccompanied children on Christmas Island will no longer have Minister Bowen as their guardian, that the minister will have no responsibility for them and no liability for them et cetera, that he will no longer have to sign on the dotted line to have them removed from the country, that they will be able to be removed without his signature? He can exercise his discretion, if he wishes, to do something about them, but the fact is the government and the coalition have come here tonight to remove the guardianship responsibilities of the minister from unaccompanied children. As of tonight, if this bill goes through, those 10 unaccompanied children will no longer have a guardian under Australian law. Is that correct?
~~Kate Lundy~~
I am getting some advice on the specific point you are making, but first of all I would like to reject outright the assertion you made at the beginning of your statement that Australia was not adhering to its international obligations. I have gone to great pains to explain why that is not the case. I understand that the Greens are of a different view—they have asserted that continually—but we totally reject their claim that we are not adhering to our international obligations.
In relation to the impact of the High Court judgement and how that relates to unaccompanied minors, I would like to make a number of points which I think go to the issue you have raised. The majority of the High Court in the Plaintiff M106 case held that the taking of an unaccompanied minor from Australia is unlawful in the absence of the consent in writing of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. The ruling means that no unaccompanied minor can be removed or taken from Australia in the exercise of any power under the Migration Act unless the minister, in his capacity as the statutory guardian, gives consent. This consent would be subject to judicial review.
The court also found that any decision the minister made regarding consent would need to be made consistent with the best interests of the child. In practice it would mean that an unaccompanied minor found not to be a refugee could claim it was not in their best interests to be returned to their country of origin and this may be accepted by the courts. The government has stated that this is not sustainable as public policy. In practice, the decision means that the minister has the power that no other parent or guardian in Australia has, which is to prevent the otherwise lawful exercise of removal powers under the Migration Act 1958.
In effect, the bill before us reasserts the primacy of the Migration Act with regard to unaccompanied minors and the amendments to the guardianship act will also put beyond doubt that the minister's guardianship ceases when a child is removed from Australia or taken from Australia without a visa or right to return.
~~Christine Milne~~
So the minister has said that the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ceases the minute the child leaves the country and is sent to an offshore detention centre. The whole reason for this is to remove the rights of the child in terms of what they would have had under the existing legislation. Is it the fact that the minister has to decide, as the guardian of the child, to sign off on removal of a child and to send that child offshore—which is appealable in the courts—which will mean that the minister will no longer be their guardian? For the 10 unaccompanied minors on Christmas Island, as of tonight we are getting rid of the guardianship responsibilities of the minister in relation to those 10 children.
~~Kate Lundy~~
~~I refer the senator to paragraph 271 of the explanatory memorandum:~~
The High Court’s decision does not align with the Government’s policy intention which is that the Minister’s consent under section 6A of the IGOC Act is not required for a noncitizen child to be removed, taken or deported from Australia under the Migration Act. This intention is given effect by item 8 of Schedule 2. As such, this amendment is a consequential amendment as a result of item 8. Subsection 6A(4) is effectively replaced by the amendments to section 8 made by item 8 of Schedule 2.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
This is a vote on the amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers:<ul> <li> will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law</li> . This amendment also stipulates that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
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=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4683_amend_ef9a8320-2046-40da-a7f0-8eff32459e9c%22;rec=0"> here</a>.