|
Show detail
The majority agreed with the amendments made to the bill in the Senate. This means that the bill can now become law because it has been passed by both houses of Parliament in the same form.
Bill's main idea
The bill's main idea is to speed up the management of asylum seekers' claims and support the Government's policies that stop asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat (for example, by intercepting the boats and turning them around). It also re-introduces temporary protection visas "because the Government is of the view that those who arrive by boat without a valid visa should not be rewarded with permanent protection" (see the bills digest)
Human rights issues
Some of the changes made by the bill may go against Australia's international law obligations. Particularly Australia's non-refoulement obligations, which stop Australia from sending people to places where their lives or freedoms are threatened. Australia has these obligations because it signed up to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture.
For example, the bill will insert a provision into the Migration Act 1958 that says that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are not relevant to removing people who are not citizens and don't have a visa. The bills digest explains that this change would mean courts won't be able to stop the Government from removing people just because it is against Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. In other words, the Government wants to decide how to apply those obligations by itself, without any potential judicial oversight.
For more about which changes may go against these obligations and how, see the bills digest.
Background to the bill
The title of the bill says it is about "resolving the asylum legacy caseload". This refers to the asylum claims made by asylum seekers who arrived by boat without a visa between August 2012 and December 2013 and who have not been sent to be processed on Nauru or Manus Island. The Coalition Government says this caseload of asylum claims is the result of the previous Labor Government's policies.
During the 2013 election campaign, the Coalition said it would address this caseload and the changes made in this bill are part of their effort to do this.
More information on the background to the bill is in the bills digest.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority agreed with the bill's main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they voted in favour of giving the bill a second reading). This means that the House of Representatives can now discuss the bill in more detail.
Bill's main idea
The bill's main idea is to speed up the management of asylum seekers' claims and support the Government's policies that stop asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat (for example, by intercepting the boats and turning them around). It also re-introduces temporary protection visas "because the Government is of the view that those who arrive by boat without a valid visa should not be rewarded with permanent protection" (see the bills digest)
Human rights issues
Some of the changes made by the bill may go against Australia's international law obligations. Particularly Australia's non-refoulement obligations, which stop Australia from sending people to places where their lives or freedoms are threatened. Australia has these obligations because it signed up to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture.
For example, the bill will insert a provision into the Migration Act 1958 that says that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are not relevant to removing people who are not citizens and don't have a visa. The bills digest explains that this change would mean courts won't be able to stop the Government from removing people just because it is against Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. In other words, the Government wants to decide how to apply those obligations by itself, without any potential judicial oversight.
For more about which changes may go against these obligations and how, see the bills digest.
Background to the bill
The title of the bill says it is about "resolving the asylum legacy caseload". This refers to the asylum claims made by asylum seekers who arrived by boat without a visa between August 2012 and December 2013 and who have not been sent to be processed on Nauru or Manus Island. The Coalition Government says this caseload of asylum claims is the result of the previous Labor Government's policies.
During the 2013 election campaign, the Coalition said it would address this caseload and the changes made in this bill are part of their effort to do this.
More information on the background to the bill is in the bills digest.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill a second time.
This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that it can now be discussed in greater detail.
The main idea of the bill is to ensure that asylum seekers who unlawfully arrive anywhere in Australia are subject to the same regional processing arrangements as asylum seekers who arrive at an excised offshore place such as Christmas Island.
Background of the Bill
This bill was introduced in response to a report by the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, particularly Recommendation 14 which states that: "the Migration Act 1958 be amended so that arrival anywhere on Australia by irregular maritime means will not provide individuals with a different lawful status than those who arrive in an excise offshore place".(Read the full report here. )
By implementing this recommendation, the bill extends the excision regime that was introduced in 2001 following the Tampa affair. That regime provides that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia at excised offshore places are unable to apply for protection visas (in effect, refugee status under Australian law) unless the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship decides it is in the public interest that they do so. The effect of this bill will be to extend the excision provisions to the whole country.(More information on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 is available on the bills digest (680 KB). Also see an ABC news report explaining the effect of this bill here.)
This means that all asylum seekers arriving by boat in either mainland Australia or an offshore Australian territory that has been excised are unable to apply for protection visas and will be sent to regional processing countries (currently Papua New Guinea and Nauru) for the processing of their refugee claims. The rationale behind this legislation is the need to discourage asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat because of the dangers involved.
References
|
absent
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.
This means that the bill is now passed in the House of Representatives and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
Background to Bill
The bill was introduced by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott in response to the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's Malaysia Solution policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia here and on ABC News here. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution here. )
To this end, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found here.) It also amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the Bali Process into domestic law.
References
|
No
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree to the bill as amended.
This means that the the bill can now progress to the third reading stage.
Background to Bill
The bill was introduced by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott in response to the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's Malaysia Solution policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia here and on ABC News here. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution here. )
To this end, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found here.) It also amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the Bali Process into domestic law.
References
|
No
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion proposed by Independent MP Andrew Wilkie.
The motion was that the amendments in this bill only have effect for a period of 12 months after it commences as an Act.
Someone who votes aye in this division supports this amendment. The majority voted aye in this amendment, so it was successful and is included in this bill.
Background to the bill
The bill was introduced by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott in response to the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's Malaysia Solution policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia here and on ABC News here. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution here. )
To this end, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found here.) It also amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the Bali Process into domestic law.
References
|
No
|
No
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
An equal number of members voted in favour of and against a motion to read the bill for a second time.
However, the motion was ultimately successful because the Deputy Speaker Anna Burke gave her casting vote with the ayes.
This means that the bill was read a second time.
Someone who voted aye (that is, in favour of the bill), agreed with the main idea of the bill.
Background to the bill
The bill was introduced by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott in response to the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's Malaysia Solution policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia here and on ABC News here. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution here. )
To this end, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found here.) It also amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.
By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the Bali Process into domestic law.
References
|
absent
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree to the remaining stages of the bill, including the government amendments as circulated.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through here. )
This means that the bill is now passed in the House of Representatives and can now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
Three Liberal Party ministers rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the opposition in this division:(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our FAQ section. ) Russell Broadbent, Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan.
Background to the bill
The bill was introduced to expand the offshore processing regime(Read more about Australia's offshore processing regime here. ) to include all people arriving at mainland Australia unlawfully by sea on or after 13 April 2006.(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memoranda, here. For more background, read its bills digest (293 KB).) This means that all such people will be treated as if they had landed in an excised place, meaning an place that is excluded from the migration zone.
References
|
Yes
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through here. )
This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill.
Three Liberal Party ministers rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'no' with the opposition in this division:(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our FAQ section. ) Russell Broadbent, Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan.
Background to the bill
The bill was introduced to expand the offshore processing regime(Read more about Australia's offshore processing regime here. ) to include all people arriving at mainland Australia unlawfully by sea on or after 13 April 2006.(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memoranda, here. For more background, read its bills digest (293 KB).) This means that all such people will be treated as if they had landed in an excised place, meaning an place that is excluded from the migration zone.
References
|
Yes
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
