|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion to disallow the Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019. If it had been successful, that instrument would have stopped having legal force.
Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim (Greens) explained why he wanted the Instrument disallowed:
This is a classic example of scope creep by this government. Having established the unfair, punitive, unjust fast-track arrangements that have caught so many people who arrived in our country by boat seeking asylum, they now want to expand that erosion of rights and apply it to a further cohort of people. This Senate quite rightly rejected such a move by this government in the last parliament, and I call on my colleagues today to hold the line, stand up for some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged people in our community today and vote to disallow this instrument. Almost exactly a year ago, the Morrison government attempted to extend fast-track assessments to people who arrived by boat before 2014 and were already living in Australia. That expansion would have captured an extra 108 people.
I want to make one thing very clear about the fast-track process: it is neither fast nor fair. The fast-track assessment process removes access to the normal processes of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and denies people their rights to a fair review of government decisions.
Motion text
That the Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2019L00506].
|
No
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendments to the bill, which means all the amendments are agreed to and so the bill can now pass.
What does the bill do?
According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced to make various amendments to migration, customs and passenger movement laws, including:
- clarifying that where the removal of a non-citizen from the migration zone to another country is unsuccessful, a visa is not required to bring the person back to Australia and they remain subject to statutory bars on subsequent visa applications, where applicable;
- providing that the Minister may make documents available to a person by way of an online account;
- providing that the Commonwealth may appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay refunds, rebates or drawbacks of customs duty in circumstances where those payments have no other statutory basis; and
- amending the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978 to specify that regulations may make provision for the charging and recovery of fees in relation to the Passenger Movement Charge.
|
No
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the remaining stages of the bill so that it will be passed with the amendments adopted by the Senate. The bill will now be sent back to House of Representatives, where our MPs will decide whether they agree with the Senate's amendments.
What does the bill do?
According to the bills digest:
The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 (the Bill) is an omnibus Bill which makes various amendments to migration, customs and passenger movement laws. The Bill:
- amends the Migration Act 1958 to:
clarify that where the removal of a non-citizen from the migration zone to another country is unsuccessful, a visa is not required to bring the person back to Australia and they remain subject to statutory bars on subsequent visa applications, where applicable (Schedule 1) provide that the Minister may make documents available to a person by way of an online account (Schedule 2)
- amends the Customs Act 1901 to:
provide that the Commonwealth may appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to pay refunds, rebates or drawbacks of customs duty in circumstances where those payments have no other statutory basis (Schedule 3) make minor technical amendments (Schedule 5) and
- amends the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978 to specify that regulations may make provision for the charging and recovery of fees in relation to the Passenger Movement Charge (Schedule 4).
|
No
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to disallow Migration Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Regulations 2017, which means they'll no longer have any legal force.
What did the Regulations do?
Greens Senator Nick McKim (Tas) explained that:
This regulation which we are seeking to disallow would provide the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection with sweeping new powers on top of what the Australian Greens already consider to be a far too broad range of powers, which have been exercised continually in an unreasonable way by the minister.
The changes that the minister is proposing to make, in broad terms, would allow the immigration department to detain people, potentially indefinitely, on the basis of criminal conduct that has not been proven or even tried, on the basis of behaviour that's considered by the department to have endangered or threatened another person extending, potentially, to bullying and online vilification, and because of inconsistencies in people's names on identity documents issued by any Commonwealth, state or territory government authority or official, or failures to update any name changes in those documents.
See the explanatory memorandum for more information about what these Regulations did.
|
No
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim (Tas), which means it was successful.
This motion asked for the documents to be produced that relate to the agreement between Australia and the USA for the potential resettlement of refugees currently on Manus Island and Nauru, which President Donald Trump has described as a "dumb deal".
Motion
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, on 15 February 2017, the agreement between Australia and the United States of America announced on 13 November 2016 regarding the potential resettlement to the United States of refugees on Manus Island and Nauru.
|
absent
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion, which means it was successful. Motions like this don't have legal force but demonstrate the opinion of the Senate.
Motion text
(1) That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in March 2017:
The serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre, with particular reference to:
(a) the factors that have contributed to the abuse and self-harm alleged to have occurred;
(b) how notifications of abuse and self-harm are investigated;
(c) the obligations of the Commonwealth Government and contractors relating to the treatment of asylum seekers, including the provision of support, capability and capacity building to local authorities;
(d) the provision of support services for asylum seekers who have been alleged or been found to have been subject to abuse, neglect or self-harm in the centres or within the community;
(e) the role an independent children’s advocate could play in ensuring the rights and interests of unaccompanied minors are protected,
(f) the effect of Part 6 of the Australian Border Force Act 2015;
(g) attempts by the Commonwealth Government to negotiate third country resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees;
(h) additional measures that could be implemented to expedite third country resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees within the centres; and
(i) any other related matters.
(2) That the committee be granted access to all inquiry submissions and documents of the preceding committee relating to its inquiry into the conditions and treatment of asylum seekers and refugees at the regional processing centres in the Republic of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
|
absent
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Labor Senator Lisa Singh, which means it was successful.
These motions have no legal force, but do show the opinion of the Senate.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) a large cache of documents has been made public regarding the treatment of asylum seekers including children on Nauru, and
(ii) these documents contain concerning reports of alleged abuse; and
(b) call upon the Australian Government:
(i) to reveal whether these serious and disturbing allegations of abuse have been investigated and the outcomes of those investigations, and
(ii) to appoint an Independent Children's Advocate backed by adequate resources and statutory powers to ensure the rights and interests of children are protected.
|
No
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim, which means it was unsuccessful.
The motion called for a Royal Commission into Australia’s immigration detention facilities to be established.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the damage done to men, women and children by offshore detention on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea and Nauru as revealed to the Parliament through Senate inquiries, independent government reports and a recent leak of more than 2,000 incident reports from Nauru; and
(b) calls on the Government to establish a Royal Commission into Australia’s immigration detention facilities, including those on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea and Nauru.
|
absent
|
Yes (strong)
|
Not passed by a modest majority
|
