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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2015-06-25#3

Edited by mackay

on 2016-08-18 10:48:07

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a motion to "*exempt this bill from the [bills cut-off](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so111) order*". If this motion hadn't been successful, the Senate would have had to wait until the next sitting period in order to consider this bill.
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-06-25.11.2) to "*exempt this bill from the [bills cut-off](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so111) order*". If this motion hadn't been successful, the Senate would have had to wait until the next sitting period in order to consider this bill.
  • Read more about bills cut-off orders in [Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/~/link.aspx?_id=49DC5DA705D1472F95440FDF517201FA&_z=z).
  • Liberal Senator [Mitch Fifield](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/mitch_fifield) (Vic) explained why they were seeking this:
  • Liberal Senator [Mitch Fifield](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/mitch_fifield) (Vic) [explained](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-06-25.11.2) the Coalition were seeking this:
  • > *As I indicated in my contribution on the motion relating to hours, the offshore processing arrangements are central to the government's efforts to protect our borders. We place a very high premium as a government on the protection of our borders. We are seeking exemption from the cut-off in order to enable this legislation to be debated and resolved today. The government is clearly of the view that it is important to that it is important to ensure certainty and a robust legislative basis for offshore processing. In seeking to move exemption from the cut-off, we are not attempting to do anything other than what has frequently been done in this place for bills which are time critical.*
  • ### Motion text
  • > *That a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.*
  • ### What does the bill do?
  • According to its [parliamentary website](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5491), the bill:
  • > *Amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries, including the expenditure of Commonwealth money on these arrangements.*
senate vote 2015-06-25#3

Edited by mackay

on 2016-08-18 10:47:23

Title

  • Bills — Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015; First Reading
  • Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - First Reading - Procedure

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p>
  • <p>I move:</p>
  • <p>That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of a motion to "*exempt this bill from the [bills cut-off](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so111) order*". If this motion hadn't been successful, the Senate would have had to wait until the next sitting period in order to consider this bill.
  • Read more about bills cut-off orders in [Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/~/link.aspx?_id=49DC5DA705D1472F95440FDF517201FA&_z=z).
  • Liberal Senator [Mitch Fifield](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/mitch_fifield) (Vic) explained why they were seeking this:
  • > *As I indicated in my contribution on the motion relating to hours, the offshore processing arrangements are central to the government's efforts to protect our borders. We place a very high premium as a government on the protection of our borders. We are seeking exemption from the cut-off in order to enable this legislation to be debated and resolved today. The government is clearly of the view that it is important to that it is important to ensure certainty and a robust legislative basis for offshore processing. In seeking to move exemption from the cut-off, we are not attempting to do anything other than what has frequently been done in this place for bills which are time critical.*
  • ### Motion text
  • > *That a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.*
  • ### What does the bill do?
  • According to its [parliamentary website](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5491), the bill:
  • > *Amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries, including the expenditure of Commonwealth money on these arrangements.*
  • <p>Question agreed to.</p>
  • <p>Bill read a first time.</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to move a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order.</p>
  • <p>Leave not granted.</p>
  • <p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz, I move:</p>
  • <p class="italic">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order.</p>
  • <p>As I indicated in my contribution on the motion relating to hours, the offshore processing arrangements are central to the government's efforts to protect our borders. We place a very high premium as a government on the protection of our borders. We are seeking exemption from the cut-off in order to enable this legislation to be debated and resolved today. The government is clearly of the view that it is important to that it is important to ensure certainty and a robust legislative basis for offshore processing. In seeking to move exemption from the cut-off, we are not attempting to do anything other than what has frequently been done in this place for bills which are time critical.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p>
  • <p>I am scratching my head about why this is so critical today because we are told that it is important to rush this legislation through, that it is absolutely critical that we bypass the ordinary procedures of the Senate to ensure there is certainty around the law. I go back to a question asked by my colleague Senator Hanson-Young of Senator Brandis yesterday where she asked whether the government was ramming this through the Senate because the actions of this government have indeed been unlawful</p>
  • <p>Senator Brandis said:</p>
  • <p class="italic">No, that is incorrect, Senator. The government is of the view that the offshore processing arrangements are lawful. That is the view of the government. &#8230; and I understand the former Labor government also believed&#8212;that the offshore processing arrangements were lawful.</p>
  • <p>You cannot have it both ways. Either Senator Brandis was misleading the parliament yesterday when he put his position forward that these arrangements are lawful, or this legislation is necessary because they are unlawful. Only one of the two is correct.</p>
  • <p>If we are to accept that Senator Brandis did not mislead the parliament yesterday, there is absolutely no need to do this. There is no need to bypass the ordinary procedures of the Senate. There is no need to ram through this legislation; there is no need to do it without any scrutiny; there is no need to bypass the courts; there is no need to trample on the democratic institutions this country is founded on. There is no need to do it. Senator Brandis made it crystal clear: in his view, in the view of the government, existing arrangements are lawful. So why are we having the debate? What is the reason for doing this? There is none. Or perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps Senator Brandis was misleading the parliament.</p>
  • <p>We will give him the opportunity to correct the record. If he indeed does believe, and if he is certain, that the arrangements are not legal, then I am sure the Labor Party would agree that we can assume that this is totally unnecessary and that what we are doing here is wasting the parliament's time. If, on the other hand, the government feels the urgency to support this motion, again with the support of the Labor Party, then I expect that Senator Brandis will correct the record, and he will correct the response that he gave to Senator Hanson-Young in question time.</p>
  • <p>This is a disgraceful abuse of the parliament. We have a system of detention where there is some contention. It is the job of the High Court to resolve that; it is not the job of this parliament to bypass the law. We do not support the motion. We think it should go to committee for further scrutiny. We think that it is critical that a decision of this importance&#8212;effectively saying that the court needs to be bypassed by the actions of this parliament in a last minute rush on the verge of a long break&#8212;is not appropriate. We will not be supporting the motion. We think that the Labor Party and the crossbenchers should join us in opposing this abuse of the parliament.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by Senator Fifield, be agreed to.</p>
  • <p>Question agreed to.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p>
  • <p>I move:</p>
  • <p class="italic">That a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.</p>