|
senate vote 2018-12-06#26
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-05-19 12:52:31
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Let Senator Di Natale make a statement
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question now is that government amendments on sheet JC578 be agreed to.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Government's circulated amendments—</i></p><p class="italic">(1) Title, page 1 (line 2), after "migration,", insert "citizenship,".</p><p class="italic">(2) Page 10 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 10—Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions</p><p class="italic"><i>Australian Citizenship Act 2007</i></p><p class="italic">1 Subsection 35A(1)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Meaning of </i> <i>relevant terrorism conviction</i></p><p class="italic">(1A) A person has a <i>relevant terrorism conviction </i>if the person has been convicted of an offence against, or offences against, one or more of the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) a provision of Subdivision A of Division 72 of the <i>Criminal Code</i>;</p><p class="italic">(b) a provision of Subdivision B of Division 80 of the <i>Criminal Code</i> (treason);</p><p class="italic">(c) a provision of Part 5 of the <i>Criminal Code</i> (except Division 104 or 105);</p><p class="italic">(d) a provision of Part 5 of the <i>Criminal Code</i>;</p><p class="italic">(e) section 6 or 7 of the repealed <i>Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978</i>.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Meaning of </i> <i>relevant other conviction</i></p><p class="italic">(1B) A person has a <i>relevant other conviction </i>if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person has been convicted of an offence against, or offences against, one or more of the following:</p><p class="italic">  (i) a provision of Division 82 of the <i>Criminal Code</i> (sabotage) other than section 82</p><p class="italic">(preparing for or planning sabotage offence);</p><p class="italic">  (ii) a provision of Division 91 of the <i>Criminal Code</i> (espionage);</p><p class="italic">  (iii) a provision of Division 92 of the <i>Criminal Code</i> (foreign interference); and</p><p class="italic">(b) the person has, in respect of the conviction or convictions, been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 6 years, or to periods of imprisonment that total at least 6 years.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Cessation of citizenship on determination by Minister</i></p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister may determine in writing that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person has a relevant terrorism conviction or a relevant other conviction; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister is satisfied that the person would not, if the Minister were to determine that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country; and</p><p class="italic">(c) the Minister is satisfied that the conduct of the person to which the conviction or convictions relate demonstrates that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia; and</p><p class="italic">(d) having regard to the following factors, the Minister is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen:</p><p class="italic">  (i) the severity of the conduct that was the basis of the conviction or convictions and the sentence or sentences;</p><p class="italic">  (ii) the degree of threat posed by the person to the Australian community;</p><p class="italic">  (iii) the age of the person;</p><p class="italic">  (iv) if the person is aged under 18—the best interests of the child as a primary consideration;</p><p class="italic">  (v) the person's connection to the other country of which the person is a national or citizen and the availability of the rights of citizenship of that country to the person;</p><p class="italic">  (vi) Australia's international relations;</p><p class="italic">  (vii) any other matters of public interest.</p><p class="italic">Note: A person may seek review of a determination made under this subsection in the High Court of Australia under section 75 of the Constitution, or in the Federal Court of Australia under section 39B of the <i>Judiciary Act 1903</i>.</p><p class="italic">2 Subsection 35A(4)</p><p class="italic">Omit "paragraph (1) (b)", substitute "paragraph (1B) (b)".</p><p class="italic">3 Paragraph 35A(4 ) ( b)</p><p class="italic">Omit "paragraph (1) (a)" (wherever occurring), substitute "paragraph (1B) (a)".</p><p class="italic">4 Application and saving provisions</p><p class="italic">(1) Section 35A of the <i>Australian Citizenship Act 2007</i> (as amended by this Schedule) applies in relation to persons who became Australian citizens before, on or after the commencement of this item.</p><p class="italic">(2) Section 35A of the <i>Australian Citizenship Act 2007</i> (as amended by this Schedule) applies in relation to a relevant terrorism conviction occurring on or after 12 December 2005.</p><p class="italic">(3) Section 35A of the <i>Australian Citizenship Act 2007</i> (as amended by this Schedule) applies in relation to a relevant other conviction of a person if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the conviction occurred on or after 12 December 2005; and</p><p class="italic">(b) if the conviction occurred before 12 December 2015—the person was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 10 years in respect of the conviction.</p><p class="italic">(4) The amendments made by this Schedule do not affect the validity of a determination made under subsection 35A(1) of the <i>Australian Citizenship Act 2007</i> before the commencement of this item.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>by leave—That was a very funny 20 minutes. We've seen what's happened in here. There is no-one who has been watching this debate who does not know that this government is playing games in the Senate in order to protect their majority—or their minority—on the floor of the House of Representatives. They have lost control of the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I've got a point of order, Senator Wong. I'll go to Senator Cormann first, and then Senator Bernardi.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Thank you very much, Mr President. We are operating under a gag motion—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Cormann, you'll have the opportunity to make a statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>This is a point of order. The point of order is that it is important that we move swiftly through the remaining divisions. I don't think the Leader of the Opposition should be holding up the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Bernardi rose on a point of order. On a point of order, Senator Bernardi.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>My point of order is that the government hasn't been playing games; it's moved amendments. I have sought, in my role as a senator—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>That's a point of debate, Senator Bernardi; it's not a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>Senator Wong seems upset that I've been voting with the Labor Party on occasion.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>It's not a point of order with respect to what Senator Wong is saying. Senator Wong.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. Of course, a consequence of the government running away from having this bill debated in the House of Representatives is that an important national security bill will not become law. I have circulated an amendment to ensure we vote on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 by six o'clock. We should have been in that debate already. Mr Pyne has now made clear he will send the House of Representatives home before they have a chance to speak on the bill—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order, Senator Wong!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>This is an abrogation—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order, Senator Wong! When I call people to order, I respect the right of senators to call a point of order. Senator Wong has been given leave to make a statement. Senator Birmingham on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Mr President, Senator Wong was given leave to make a short statement. Senator Wong is now seeking to debate the point. Senator Wong is seeking to debate the point and mislead the Senate at the same time.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat now—</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>The order of debate today—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Please resume your seat now, Senator Birmingham. Order! I don't want to have to keep standing up. It's the last day.</p><p class="italic">Senator Birmingham interjecting—</p><p>Senator Birmingham, take your seat! On a point of order, Senator Di Natale.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>On another matter.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Wong was given leave. It was not leave to make a short statement; it was leave a make a statement. The Senate granted that leave. Senator Wong.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate the courtesy. We now are at risk of not passing important national security legislation which I and other members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security have worked very hard on. We gave the government very clear notice in that report—a unanimous report—that there would be amendments to that legislation and they needed to reflect the PJCIS's recommendations. Notice was clearly given by the shadow Attorney-General in the House of Representatives that some of the amendments did not reflect the bipartisan committee recommendations, and those would be moved in the Senate. We have a letter from Mr Christian Porter, reflecting the fact that government amendments would be moved in the Senate.</p><p>In those circumstances, this delay, which is about the government's political priorities on the floor of the House of Representatives, will prevent important national security legislation from becoming law, and I urge the government to reconsider its position. I urge the government to stop this filibustering; to ensure we can bring on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill, a national security bill that has bipartisan support; to enable the amendments that reflect the majority report of the parliamentary Joint Committee to be passed; and to ensure that the House remains so it becomes law so that our security agencies have the powers they need. Their failure to keep the House because they are so worried about this bill is an indictment on a government—on any government—that says it says it cares about national security! Australians' safety is worth more than the political points you are seeking to avoid in the House of Representatives.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I actually agree with Senator Wong; we should move immediately to deal with the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, which is a very important piece of national-security-related legislation. If the opposition are indicating through Senator Wong that they want to bring that debate on immediately then the government is happy to facilitate such a motion.</p><p>Of course, what has happened is that there was a bipartisan agreement in relation to the amendments to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill, and the amendments agreed between the government and the opposition were passed by the House of Representatives. Clearly, the Labor Party wants to play tactical games in order to enable Mr Shorten to put our offshore protection arrangements at risk. So, in order to facilitate Mr Shorten playing tactical games, the Labor Party tried to gazump the government's legislative agenda in this chamber.</p><p>The Labor Party, the opposition, has actually sought to bring on government legislation where the government is saying that it needs more time for it to be considered. How often has that happened before? So don't tell us about games. If you're genuinely interested in national security, let's adjourn the debate on the home affairs bill now. I will support a motion to adjourn the debate on the home affairs bill now to bring on the bill in relation to the other matters immediately.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>You guys should stay here and do the work you're paid to do!</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>This is it! They're literally just playing games! If the encryption bill is not passed by the Senate and those powers are not in place for intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it is on the Labor Party's head. The legislation was passed through the House of Representatives and it's 100 per cent consistent with what was agreed through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. If you are moving any amendments to that bill, it is only to frustrate the efficient passage of that bill and it is only to frustrate that bill becoming law so that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies can have the powers they need.</p><p>If you're serious and you want to deal with the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, I suggest that you support a motion that I am prepared to move to adjourn debate on the home affairs amendment bill and we can move on to it immediately. I won't do it, because I don't want to waste any more time. I was sitting here, quite happy to move through the divisions, but I'm mindful that we do have to deal with the hours motion before 4.30. So if the opposition is not prepared to facilitate efficient passage of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 through the Senate then it is on the Labor Party's head, and the Australian people will know that the Labor Party is deliberately standing in the way of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies having the powers they need.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>I seek leave to make a statement for five minutes.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-12-06.147.6) introduced by Victorian Senator [Richard Di Natale](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/richard_di_natale) (Greens) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - in order to let him make a five-minute statement. This means he can't make a statement.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from giving a five-minute statement.*
-
-
|