|
senate vote 2023-11-16#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-06-23 11:11:36
|
Title
Bills — Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023; in Committee- Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Report progress
Description
<p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>In my opening comments in the committee stage, I want to talk through the amendments that the Leader of the Opposition this morning put forward to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Richard Marles. We put forward a series of amendments. In fact, there were six policy proposals that we put forward. In the first instance, why did we do that? As I said in my speech earlier today, the coalition has always believed that the first priority of the federal government is to ensure the nation's security and defence. At 7.15 this morning, when Senator Paterson, Mr Tehan, Mr Dutton and I were first presented with the legislation that is now before the Senate, it became apparent on first glance that there were serious deficiencies in relation to the areas where amendments were then put forward. So, in a constructive manner, the coalition went away and had a further look at the explanatory memorandum and the proposed legislation, and we were able to come forward with six policy proposals that we have presented to the government. I will read through those policy proposals shortly.</p><p>The government would understand and would indeed acknowledge that, unlike the opposition, the government have the benefit of the Attorney-General's Department and the drafters and the lawyers within the department—all very good lawyers, I may add as a former Attorney-General—and they also have the benefit of the Solicitor-General. So, whilst we were able to provide the government with the initial drafting of the amendments, the government have chosen to take on board those amendments, and they themselves will now be presenting five of the six amendments to the chamber. As I said, they have the benefit of the Attorney-General's Department, the lawyers within the Attorney-General's Department and the Solicitor-General. We appreciate that. We understand that the amendments are currently being drafted by the government, and they will be presented to the chamber later on this evening.</p><p>If I could briefly go through the amendments: the first one was an amendment in relation to making curfew and electronic monitoring conditions mandatory and not discretionary. If you go to page 41 of the explanatory memorandum, it takes you through some new discretionary conditions that will be imposed by the government. But, if you go to page 15 of the explanatory memorandum, you will see a number of mandatory conditions that are now going to be imposed by the government. The question that we had was: if you truly believe in keeping Australians safe, what is the reason that the curfew and the electronic monitoring conditions are not mandatory? The amendment that we put forward would see the government make the curfew and electronic monitoring conditions mandatory and not discretionary. As I said, we put forward the policy proposal. The government has had a look at it. The proposal that is coming back to us is not as strong as our proposal, but, as I said, we support the intent of what the government is doing with our proposal, and we will be supporting the amendment.</p><p>In relation to amendment No. 2, we put forward a policy proposal requiring a visa holder not to perform work or participate in any regular organised activity that involves contact with children, other than contact of a minor or incidental nature. Currently, this is permissible with the minister's permission. This is in relation to condition 8613. Again, if you take this seriously and if you do believe your No. 1 responsibility to Australians is to keep them safe, then we would say that the policy proposal that we have put forward—for them not to perform work, as opposed to being able to seek the minister's permission to perform work—is an appropriate one.</p><p>In relation to amendment No. 3, we again put forward a proposal, because it was seriously lacking in the bill, to require a visa holder not go within 150 metres of a school, child care or daycare centre. Why would we do that? When you have a look at the nature of the offences that were committed by the people that are now out on our streets, the plaintiffs themselves, one of them has been convicted of raping a 10-year-old child. They're also murderers, contract killers and those that have perpetrated the most vile domestic violence offences. I have to ask the government: on what planet do you think this should not be included, in particular when you say the purpose of many of your amendments is to support community safety? I would have thought the amendment we have put forward and the policy proposal we've put forward to the government will do that.</p><p>In relation to the fourth policy proposal we put forward, ensuring each day of a breach of a visa condition is treated as a separate offence rather than a single continuous breach, I was surprised when I went to page 14 of the explanatory memorandum, point 59, in relation to the application of the Crimes Act. It states:</p><p class="italic">… that an ongoing breach of a condition to do an act or thing within a specified period or by a specified time will constitute a single offence, rather than multiple offences for each day in which there is a failure to comply.</p><p>The proposal we put to the government is to ensure that they are treated as separate offences rather than a single continuous breach. We've had discussions with the government in relation to the effect that would have on a minimum mandatory sentence, and I understand that a compromise was reached. Again, we thank the government for working with us and for the compromise I understand will be delivered to the chamber later this evening.</p><p>In relation to amendment No. 5 in the policy proposal we put forward and the drafting of the amendment we put forward to the government, if the visa holder has been convicted of an offence involving violence or sexual assault, it would allow the minister to impose a condition requiring no contact with the victim or the victim's family. A decision to impose a no-contact condition is one that we believe is appropriate. Again, the government say they've put forward the strongest conditions they could avail themselves of, but, when Senator Paterson and I reviewed the conditions, we believed that there was certainly room for improvement. In relation to those five amendments, Mr Dutton presented the policy proposals and drafting to the Acting Prime Minister at the time, Mr Marles. Obviously, Mr Marles made a statement in the House of Representatives today, and Senator Wong followed that statement that Mr Marles made with a statement in the Senate. As I said, the government, having the benefit of the Attorney-General's Department, having the benefit of the legal drafters in the Attorney-General's Department and certainly having the benefit of the Solicitor-General's advice, has undertaken to look at the drafting and provide us with new amendments reflecting the policy options we have put forward in the discussions that Mr Marles and Mr Dutton have had. We look forward to seeing those amendments later this evening and to the government supporting those amendments as they will be putting them forward.</p><p>In relation to amendment No. 6, this is to establish a mandatory minimum sentence for the offences in the bill. The one thing that really stood out when Senator Paterson and I reviewed the bill and the explanatory memorandum is that the sentencing options that the government had placed in its initial drafting did not exclude anything else—in other words, for example, could you get a suspended sentence? It was a maximum sentence, yes, but there was no mention of a minimum sentence or the exclusion of lesser penalties. I'm pleased that Mr Marles made the statement in the House of Representatives because I know that the Prime Minister would not have done this. I congratulate the then Acting Prime Minister for accepting that the Labor Party will vote for establishing mandatory minimum sentences.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>Senator McKim, on a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p> Senator Cash is referring to amendments that have not been circulated and are not before the chamber. I ask you whether she is being relevant to the question before the chamber or she is in fact pre-empting a matter that the chamber is yet to be aware of.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>I have been listening carefully to Senator Cash. She is referring to policy positions that she will be seeking to have amended, so I think it is relevant.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>I congratulate the Acting Prime Minister and the Labor Party, in the absence of the Prime Minister, for agreeing with the coalition's proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. Certainly we believe that this shows the outmost—</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>Senator McKim?</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>It's the same point of order. Senator Cash is now clearly referring to the Liberals' proposal to make an amendment in regard to mandatory minimum sentences, which obviously is against Labor Party policy, but we'll leave that aside for now. I again ask you to make a ruling on relevance.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>Firstly, we are in committee and the committee is a free-ranging debate. Members in this instance can even flag they will amend, Senator McKim. I think the member is entitled to speak as the senator has done in this instance.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>It shows the outmost seriousness with which we take the requirements to comply with the conditions for each offence, and in relation to that we believe that a minimum mandatory sentence is appropriate.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>Senator McKim, I will give priority to the minister. I note that you wish the call, and I will give you the call next.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>I won't be terribly long, so Senator McKim will have an opportunity to say something. I want to briefly respond. I welcome the constructive discussions that have occurred over the course of today between members of the government and members of the opposition. This has been a challenging episode for all Australians to deal with, with the High Court making the decision that overturned 20 years of accepted precedent. As is obviously known, the government introduced legislation to deal with the matter today. The opposition raised a number of issues that they thought needed to be addressed. We've always made clear that we wanted to ensure that we could deal with this issue as quickly as we possibly could, and we were willing to work with the opposition to address some of the issues they raised in order to have legislation passed so as to deal with this issue as quickly as possible.</p><p>One of the other things we've had to take into consideration was the constitutionality of any legislation that was introduced or further amendments that were considered. It has been somewhat more difficult to prepare legislation and ensure the constitutionality of any amendments in the absence of the full reasons from the High Court, but we consider that it is a matter of national priority and in the national interest to ensure that legislation is introduced and passed that keeps the safety of Australians paramount. That has been one of our concerns all along through this process. I know we've heard a number of comments from the Greens party, and will no doubt continue to do so tonight, that suggests that we should not be doing what we are attempting to do in this legislation, but the simple fact is that at least the Labor Party, and it would appear the coalition parties, do recognise we do have an obligation to the Australian people to keep them safe. There are a number of people who have been released who have serious criminal records, and we owe it to the Australian public to act as quickly as we can to maintain the safety of the Australian population. That's why we have moved quickly in preparing and introducing this legislation. We have been willing to work with the opposition to pass this legislation as quickly as possible so as to assure Australians of their safety in the wake of this High Court decision which, as I said, overturned 20 years of legal precedent.</p><p>I thought it was worth putting some context around what is happening here. As I say, it's been a little difficult to prepare this legislation in the absence of the reasons. But some of us do take our responsibility for national security and community safety seriously, Senator McKim. It's a matter for you and your party as to whether you place weight on that whatsoever. I look forward to us being able to consider this legislation and pass it as quickly as possible, so that the matter is dealt with.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-16.265.1):
- > *That the committee report progress.*
-
-
|