|
senate vote 2021-05-13#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-09-02 12:06:04
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Let another vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion to provide for the consideration of the Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021. The motion has been circulated in the chamber.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-05-13.3.2) introduced by South Australian Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Independent), which means it failed. The motion was to ignore 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 another vote take place.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion relating to the conduct of business, namely a motion to give precedence to the consideration of the Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021.*
<p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion relating to the conduct of business, namely a motion to give precedence to the consideration of the Biosecurity Amendment (No Crime to Return Home) Bill 2021.</p><p>I've not sought the grace of the Senate to immediately consider a bill before, and I would not do so except in exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstance and the reason why we should be dealing with the bill this morning is that on 1 May the Minister for Health and Aged Care made a high-risk country travel pause determination under the Biosecurity Act, making it a criminal offence for distressed Australian citizens to return home from India.</p><p>I don't say we should open our doors and just let everyone come back in without any sort of quarantine or any measures put in place. My bill does not seek to prevent the exercise of other existing powers under the Biosecurity Act to require persons, for example, to quarantine on arrival or to go to a particular destination. It doesn't stop any of that from occurring.</p><p>I know there are a bunch of Australians out there who would say: 'Tough luck. You left the country. You shouldn't be able to compromise our health.' I know that that sort of sentiment is driven by uncertainty and fear. I understand that. But we shouldn't be losing our compassion and our humanity in relation to our Australian friends and neighbours.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Patrick, I am listening carefully and I do remind you your contribution really needs to be around why you consider the bill urgent or not urgent.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Sure. I'll go to exactly that at the moment. Last week it was revealed that there are 173 unaccompanied Australian children in India who are affected by the determination. If we don't deal with this determination this week, that will continue. Not only that; there is a possibility that, throughout this pandemic, the minister could extend that determination. The minister could make a new determination that is similar. It's important to understand.</p><p>Last night I read through the explanatory memorandum of the Biosecurity Act around section 477, which is how the power is being exercised in these circumstances, and there was nothing in there that suggested in any way, shape or form that that particular act would ever be used to prevent an Australian from returning home. We're in a situation where a determination that wasn't foreshadowed has been made. So, the urgency in dealing with this is the fact that a right has been taken away that the parliament never intended to take away. That's the problem we've got here. That's why we need to deal with this issue urgently. We have had a determination made that is not disallowable, so the Senate can't use its normal processes to deal with this determination.</p><p>Again, I checked the explanatory memorandum last night, and the reason for not having these determinations disallowable was that they were going to be determinations that were based on technical and scientific requirements. This doesn't go anywhere near that. This is about the removal of a right for an Australian to return home—to criminalise an Australian's return home. That was never the intention of a non-disallowable instrument under the bill that was debated back in 2014. So there is absolute urgency in dealing with this motion.</p><p>I wasn't in the chamber yesterday when Senator Fierravanti-Wells talked about this determination, but I did read the <i>Hansard </i>this morning. She made it very clear that these sorts of determinations are quite dangerous—where the parliament has no oversight over the exercise of a power. So I am now forced to come into the chamber and seek to expedite the passage of my bill through this chamber in order to deal with a situation that should never have arisen under the bill that was originally presented to this parliament. I invite people to go back and have a look at that explanatory memorandum. I invite them to have a look at the debates. The exercise of this sort of power was never mentioned.</p><p>We have to deal with this bill. I'd love to be able to do it by way of disallowance. I'm unable to do that, and that's the reason we should be dealing with this bill this morning.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I rise to contribute to this debate on the suspension of standing orders to consider Senator Patrick's motion, and I indicate that the Greens will be supporting the suspension. We believe this is a matter of urgency that needs to be dealt with now. We also believe amendments need to be made to the Biosecurity Act. People may recall that earlier in the week I circulated an amendment to the biosecurity bill that was supposed to be coming to this place after being dealt with by the House of Representatives. We thought that was a way we could deal with this issue, by amending that bill, which would of course amend the act. However, that bill hasn't come on for debate, so that has not been able to occur; hence our support for the suspension of standing orders to discuss this bill.</p><p>I remind this chamber that there are 9,500 Australians and permanent residents stuck in India who wish to come home. They were devastated when the ban was put in place but even more devastated when, overnight, on a Friday night, the minister chose to put in place and announced criminal sanctions on people returning home. That was a further devastation for those people, a reminder of those 9,500, including 950 vulnerable people, 173 of whom are unaccompanied minors. I'm sure everyone in this place has heard the very tragic accounts of parents separated from their children. They need to come home. I can barely imagine being one of those parents who heard about the ban and then the criminalisation of their child's potentially coming home. That's why this is urgent. Although the Prime Minister at the moment is saying, 'Oh, yeah, we'll have three repatriation flights and maybe a few more,' there's nothing to stop him enacting this again and making it happen again. That is why this is urgent. That is why we will be supporting the suspension of standing orders, to ensure that this situation does not occur.</p><p>That takes me to the points Senator Fierravanti-Wells made yesterday, reinforcing the concerns that the Greens have had for a long time. I used to be a member of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, as Senator Rice is now. This issue has also come up, repeatedly—that is, legislation that is coming through with instruments that are not disallowable. It is an outrageous way to govern this country, when ministers—and prime ministers—can make decisions that cannot be questioned and that we cannot come into this chamber and seek to disallow. When you're getting something so momentous as banning 9,500 people from coming home, of whom 950 are vulnerable, which means they need urgent support and attention, that power should not be put in the hands of a minister. That's just one example; there are a whole lot of other instruments that are not disallowable.</p><p>Increasingly, it's the trend of government to move to putting in place instruments that are not disallowable. This is certainly one. I commend Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I don't often commend Senator Fierravanti-Wells, to be honest and open, but on this one she's right. We shouldn't be governing in this manner. In some legislation there are a few principles, but there's not much meat on the bones and everything else is through regulatory instruments, increasingly many of which are not disallowable. That's why this is urgent. It's so we make sure that the Prime Minister doesn't change his mind again to stop people, particularly those in India—citizens and permanent residents—from coming home. It is absolutely critical. The situation in India, we know, is critical. That is why this debate needs to be had, and that's why we'll be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders to bring on this bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Unquestionably, Australia stands absolutely side by side with India through the pandemic crisis that currently is impacting that country, and we will continue to stand by countries around the world as they go through the pandemic. However, decisions in relation to Australia and decisions in relation to legislation remain in the purview of the government. The idea that Senator Patrick, with the support of the Greens, would seek to come in here and decide that he himself is the one who decides how this chamber is operating—there is a process—sort of surprises me. Senator Patrick has always been one of the people who have been particularly consistent in understanding the processes and the procedures of this chamber. I understand that Senator Patrick is a great respecter of the processes of this place and respects this chamber. So I find it quite surprising that he comes in here today and decides to rearrange government business.</p><p>However, I would just like to put on the record, before I finish my short contribution on this matter, that Australia takes its responsibility for keeping Australians safe very, very seriously. We also take our responsibility in relation to all Australians very, very seriously. We will always make sure that we operate in the best interests of the health and safety of our citizens, because there can be no more important thing that a government can do than to protect the safety of its citizens and its country. We will continue to do so. But we will continue also to defend the right of the government to determine the operation of the business of this chamber. I'm sorry, Senator Patrick, but I think this is, once again, a stunt. I'm particularly disappointed because I know how widely held your views on convention are in this place, and for you to come in here and seek to abuse that I find quite surprising.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>One Nation won't support Senator Patrick's stance on suspending standing orders to put his bill forward. I do believe also that it is grandstanding. The determination will come to an end on 15 May, and it will be reviewed to see if they will open up the borders. Why I think this is important is that, yes, India is going through a pandemic, but the courts ruled on this and they threw it out. It was not breaking the constitutional rights of the people; it was for health reasons. It's exactly the same—the premiers didn't open up the state borders for exactly the same reason the courts have ruled. They supported the government on its stance.</p><p>In India, you have the consulate of Australia. It depends on the citizens that are there, as a lot of them are permanent residents who have travelled there under an Indian passport. Under the international laws, if they travel on an Indian passport, they are under the laws of that country and the Australian consulate cannot intervene. For those Australians it depends on whether they travelled under an Australian passport or under an Indian passport.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Hanson, I'm listening carefully to your contribution. I remind you that the debate needs to be centred around why this matter is urgent or not urgent.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>Well, I think it is urgent and we should be talking about it, because it is about whether or not to bring citizens back to Australia when there is a pandemic going on. I think Senator Patrick is grandstanding here, because it's two days until it will be reviewed. The government made the decision. We cannot allow this to stand up. Senator Patrick has always been exactly the same: he has always looked at the procedure of the chamber and government business. He doesn't like voting against the procedure of the chamber, and now, all of a sudden, we're supposed to vote on it because he decides he wants his bill heard. We won't be supporting it.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>Labor will not be supporting this motion by Senator Patrick. Labor shares Senator Patrick's concern for the stranded Australians in India, and we oppose the Morrison government's attempt to jail Australian citizens for coming home. But this motion would see the introduction of a bill for debate that would see the Senate override the advice of medical experts, and that is not the Senate's role. The only way we can bring home the 40,000 stranded Australians, including from India, is for Scott Morrison to finally roll out the vaccine here in Australia and accept his responsibility to safely expand Australia's quarantine capacity so that all Australians can again call Australia home.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>I won't be supporting this either. This is a mixture of a lot of things. First of all, let's be honest: Liberal Party, you have failed so far. We've got just over 2½ million vaccine jabs on the road, so we're miles behind on that. It's not just Australians in India. We're now 15 or 16 months into this and we've still got stranded Australians who want to come home from countries that have now got COVID under control, and we still can't get them home. That is a failure of the government. You still have not set up places to quarantine them so that we can get them home. It really has been a failure, and, for that, they're paying the price.</p><p>In saying that, I will always put those on home soil first. I will always put them first and foremost, and I will never put their lives at risk. We will not do that. I'm sorry that there are Australians overseas, whether they're in India or not, but now they're going to have to pay the price. They're going to have to pay the price, if they're there, for the sake of everybody else. I do apologise. I know what you're saying. This is about jailing Australian citizens. Well, I'm telling you right now: I don't think threatening them with jail was a good idea, but, if you want to come home and put other Australians at risk, when there is no need to put the other 25 million of us at risk, you've got to weigh it up. I think it's a really harsh way of dealing—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Lambie, may I remind you that this debate is about the urgency or not of the motion before the Senate.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|