|
senate vote 2023-12-05#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-05-12 10:45:57
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>by leave—I move:</p><p class="italic">That—</p><p class="italic">(a) the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 be called on immediately and, until the bill is finally determined, the routine of business be as follows:</p><p class="italic">i. consideration of the bill only;</p><p class="italic">ii. the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be as follows:</p><p class="italic">(A) second reading—60 minutes,</p><p class="italic">(B) the question be put on all remaining stages after a further 90 minutes.</p><p class="italic">(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and</p><p class="italic">(c) following consideration of the bill, the Senate return to its routine of business.</p><p>This motion has the effect of bringing on this bill, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, immediately. The government have said they're ready to debate the bill, so let's debate the bill. Of course, if the Albanese government had its house in order, this would have been done weeks ago.</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Senators</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham, I'm going to ask you to resume your seat. While Senator Birmingham is making his comments, I expect there to be silence, particularly on my left side but right across the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Indeed, I'm happy for those behind, who are very passionate about this, to be able to have their say too, because if the government—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham, resume your seat. I have asked for silence—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>Order! Order across the chamber! I have asked for silence, and there will be silence.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>If the government had their house in order, this would have been done weeks ago. It would have been ready weeks ago, been done weeks ago and been able to pass this parliament. If they'd had the House sitting this week, it could have at least been done days ago in terms of passing through.</p><p>The government has stood in here today—Senator Wong is saying, 'Why isn't the opposition supporting this?' Well, when the government finally, belatedly, was dragged kicking and screaming to the point of proposing a preventive detention regime, it was already at the point where it couldn't pass the parliament before the House came back for its normal business on Thursday of this week. But if the government wants to come in here and taunt us and say, 'Bring it on,' we're ready. Bring it on. We are ready to do so.</p><p>Most importantly, if the government had competent ministers, this would have been done before detainees were released, because that is the real crime of the way the Albanese government has handled this matter. The real crime of the Albanese government's handling of this matter is that detainees—murderers, rapists, paedophiles—were released before preventive orders were put in place and before measures to protect Australians from harm were put in place. That is the real crime of what has occurred. In failure upon failure from the Albanese government, they have stumbled at every turn in relation to this matter. They stumbled, it seems, in relation to the case they put before the High Court. They talked out of both sides of their mouth before the court, with the Human Rights Commission arguing one thing, having been approved to enter the court by the Attorney-General, whilst the government put an alternative proposition to the High Court. They presented evidence to the court suggesting that the individual subject of the case could not be deported, yet it appears the government may have had contrary advice to that, therefore providing evidence, a statement of fact, that undermined their very own case.</p><p>So they mismanaged the case itself, but then they weren't even prepared for any of the consequences of the case. Where were the contingency plans from the Albanese government? There were none because, clearly, Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil are completely incapable of managing their portfolios or of thinking ahead. It is incompetence that does not warrant the holding of ministerial office. These ministers should go. They should go because not only have they let the government down and caused immense political pain for the government; more particularly, they have exposed the Australian people to danger, to harm. This is the exposure that is the real risk and danger for the Australian people as a result of the Albanese government's mismanagement.</p><p>Think through the different steps of mismanagement we have seen. Those of us who are in this chamber—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>You're wasting time!</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Senator Wong, your government has been wasting time for weeks, wasting the opportunity for months to get this resolved. Senator Wong, we will get this done. The motion we have put forward gives a deadline. We're happy to get it done but we're not going to let you off the hook in terms of the way your government has mismanaged this from the first day.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Point of order on relevance: is the Senate opposition leader aware that his leader's office explicitly asked for this legislation to be slowed down? I just want to be clear: Mr Dutton's office explicitly asked for this legislation to be slowed down.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Wong, that is not a point of order. Please continue, Senator Birmingham.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>We were here when the decision was handed down, and ministers opposite were asked, 'What's going to happen to other individuals affected by this case, by this decision of the High Court?' Do you know what ministers said on that day? They said: 'Nothing is going to happen yet. We're going to wait to see the statement of reasons from the High Court.' That was what Minister Giles was telling the country, that was what Minister O'Neil was telling the country and that was what the Prime Minister and representing ministers in this chamber were telling the country: 'Be calm. You're safe because we're going to wait for the statement of reasons.' But what transpired? They changed their mind. They didn't wait for the statement of reasons. They panicked, they did whatever it was happening in the background, they felt pressure from the Left—whatever it was that caused the government to then open the floodgates in releasing the murderers, rapists, paedophiles, contract killers and others who had been detained back into the Australian community.</p><p>When they made that decision to release them in advance of the High Court's statement of reasons, had they put in place any safety measures in terms of how those individuals would be tracked or traced or how Australians would be protected? No, they hadn't. The opposition had to call for legislation. The government brought forward legislation which, on the day it brought it forward, at breakfast time, was the toughest it could be. But by lunchtime they'd accepted six amendments from the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, as ways to strengthen those measures. The government then released individuals who apparently managed to avoid having those ankle bracelets or other measures put in place. So we had a situation where the government said they wouldn't release people but then did, then made up protections after they'd released them and then failed to institute those protections on different individuals, and said the legislation was as tough as it could be—except, it turned out, when the opposition had suggestions it could be tougher. So, ultimately, we've got a situation where this government has been caught out flat-footed—and the ministers! There is the absolute failure of Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil to be in a position to actually manage this issue properly. If they'd been doing their job, the contingencies would have been in place. If they'd been doing their job, they would have had plans should the High Court case have gone against the government. If they'd been doing their job, those plans would have included a preventive detention regime, which, again, the government didn't move on until after the opposition had proposed it.</p><p>Indeed, the opposition's proposal was confirmed as valid when, finally, the statement of reasons was released by the High Court. Imagine if the government had either done the contingency and had the preventive detention regime in place or had the legislation ready to go and, alongside that, held its nerve and waited until the statement of reasons was released. Those two things could have had a profound difference. Why would they have made a profound difference? Because we wouldn't have what's occurring in the Australian community right now, which is to see crimes being committed by the very people released under this government. That is the most serious part of what has occurred here.</p><p>The reality that this government has proceeded to release individuals, because it was flat-footed, because it hadn't done the contingency work, and to release them in ways that have now seen Australians suffer harm. They have failed the most serious test of a government, which is to keep Australians safe. They've failed that test at a range of hurdles throughout this, and, as much as those opposite may sigh or moan, their sighing and moaning is nothing compared to the potential pain and anguish that is now being faced by those Australians.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>We just want you to sit down so we can start the debate.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Senator Wong, we'll have the debate. We're proposing the debate: 60 minutes of debate and 90 minutes for good scrutiny of the legislation. So I will do that in a second, Senator Wong, but not without—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Sit down and start the debate!</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>See, the problem is you haven't learned any lessons. There's no contrition. There's no admission. There's no acceptance of responsibility. This government won't take responsibility for any of its failures. It's amazing. You'd think with ministers as hapless as Ministers Giles and O'Neill they would take responsibility for the failures. You'd think those ministers would be gone, now or at least over the summer period, and the government could reset itself off of that disaster. But, no, instead, the government is trying to act in a state of denial, pretend that it's being tough when ultimately it has been led every step of the way in its legislation, its amendments and its proposals—the preventive detention regime has been proposed by Mr Dutton and the opposition. The only leadership that has been shown since the High Court case was handed down has come from Mr Dutton, Senator Paterson, Senator Cash, Mr Tehan and others, who have sought to make sure that the government acts in ways that is necessary. And, even right now—</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>The numbers in the gallery are falling by the minute!</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>There you go! They're caring and counting the numbers in the Press Gallery! How about caring about and counting the numbers of dangerous people released into the Australian community? How about caring about and counting the tragic number of incidents that are occurring in the Australian community as a result of that? They are the consequences of your actions. So, yes, bring it on. That is what we have proposed today. You taunted. You called for it. Bring it on. The reality is it should have been done earlier—this week if you had the House sitting. It should have been done weeks ago if you'd actually done your contingency work. It certainly should have been done before the detainees were released into the Australian community, putting Australians in danger.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator McGrath!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Yet again, if you wanted an example of how the opposition are much more interested in fighting about this than fixing this, it is that tedious and repetitive contribution from the opposition leader in the Senate. Rather than get on with the debate, which he claims—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order, Senator McGrath and Senator Ruston! Minister Wong, please continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Rather than getting on with the debate, yet again the opposition are more interested in playing politics and having a fight than in keeping people safe.</p><p>Well, you're focused on fighting. We want to make sure we fix this.</p><p>Well, you were so desperate to keep Australians—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I called you a few minutes ago, and then I called you twice in a row. I'm asking you to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong, please continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I would remind the chamber that the opposition, after that question time, has now asked to bring on the preventive detention regime—a bill that they voted against in the House with the Greens, which they have never explained.</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p><p>Can I make the second point? We also know that the very clear message from the opposition leader's office in relation to the bill that they are now seeking to bring on was that there was a request for the government to slow down the legislation to make sure they had enough time to carefully consider the legislation. They said Wednesday was good. But do you know what's happened? The fact is that Mr Tehan went to the Jericho Cup in Warrnambool, rather than be briefed on the legal advice—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Minister Wong.</p><p><i>An honourable senator interjecting</i></p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Then you should be briefed, but instead you went to Warrnambool—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Minister Wong! Please resume your seat.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>Order! Senator Cash, I called you three times in a row. You do not have the call. You are there to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong.</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/?id=2023-12-05.164.2):
- > *That the [motion](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2023-12-05/4) be now put.*
- This has the effect of ending debate and instead voting on the matter straight away.
-
-
|