|
Show detail
The same number of senators voted for and against parts (c)(ii) and (d) of the motion, which means they failed.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) agrees that:
(i) ...
(ii) the indefinite detention of refugees, both offshore and onshore, causes trauma and harm to people who have applied for refugee status under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to immediately accept the kind offer from the New Zealand government to provide resettlement to 150 people each year from Australia's offshore detention cohort.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Labor Senator Anne Urquhart (Tas), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) observes that 20 November 2018 is Universal Children's Day, commemorating the UN General Assembly's same-day adoption of the 1958 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child ('Children's Convention');
(b) acknowledges the work of UNICEF Australia and other stakeholders involved in the Australian Child Rights Taskforce's Children's Report and its recommendations;
(c) notes:
(i) that Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children continue to experience disadvantage,
(ii) the report and recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory,
(iii) that children in Australia face growing issues of intergenerational inequality,
(iv) that no child under Australia's care should suffer harm, and
(v) that refugee children under Australia's care have been languishing in indefinite detention on Nauru for over five years;
(d) invites the Morrison Government to take steps to improve Australia's adherence to the Children's Convention; and
(e) calls on the Morrison Government to accept New Zealand's resettlement offer and get the children off Nauru.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to disallow Migration (Immi 18/019: Fast Track Applicant Class) Instrument 2018, which was introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim (Tas). This means that instrument will no longer have legal effect.
What does the instrument do?
Senator McKim explained that:
This motion seeks to disallow an instrument that the government is attempting to make which would expand the group of people who are subject to the fast-track application process for protection as refugees ... [T]he group of people that are currently classed as fast-track applicants had to arrive by boat without a valid visa between 13 August 2012 and 1 January 2014 and were not exiled to Manus Island or Nauru, provided that the minister has allowed them to apply for a protection visa and the person has made a valid application.
...
The instrument that we're seeking to disallow would, if it were not disallowed, apply the category of 'fast-track applicant' to people seeking asylum who arrived in Australia by boat before 2012, were assessed by the department as not engaging Australia's protection obligations and then challenged the department's assessments in the courts. Now what the government is seeking to do is to deny them the opportunity to fully explore challenges to the department's decision in the legal system. This is a significant denial of natural justice.
Read more about the instrument in its explanatory memorandum.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Senator Cory Bernardi, which means it failed. Liberal Senator Ian MacDonald (Qld) crossed the floor to vote 'Yes' against the rest of his party.
Motion text
That the Senate:
(a) notes that the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants enables the United Nations General Assembly to work towards a global compact for migration, including an intergovernmental conference to occur later this year;
(b) further notes the comments attributed to the Minister for Home Affairs that Australia will not sign any migration compact in its current form, notwithstanding Australia's prior role in developing the agreement; and
(c) calls upon the Minister for Home Affairs, and other relevant ministers, to desist from taking any further steps towards Australia becoming a signatory to, or enacting, any elements of the global compact.
|
No
|
No
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion that called for the government to "withdraw from the Refugee Convention immediately", which was introduced by Australian Conservatives Senator Cory Bernardi (SA).
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 20 June 2017 is World Refugee Day,
(ii) the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is irretrievably broken,
(iii) people smuggling is a crime and nations must secure their borders, and
(iv) national security must always come before accepting refugees; and
(b) calls upon the Government to:
(i) withdraw from the Refugee Convention immediately; and
(ii) reflect upon incidents of domestic terror and foreign fighters, and the refugee history of those persons, and strengthen national security and immigration policies accordingly.
|
No
|
No (strong)
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim (Tas), which means the motion failed.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Papua New Guinea Government has commenced the removal of detainees from the Lombrum Regional Processing Centre for the purpose of forcibly deporting them from Papua New Guinea, and
(ii) advice from Professor Jane McAdam of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at the University of New South Wales, states:
(A) "Papua New Guinea's refugee status determination process is inconsistent with international law in a number of significant respects",
(B) "As United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has noted, the Regulation [Papua New Guinea's Migration Regulation] incorrectly applies the limited exclusion provisions of the Refugee Convention to ordinary criminal matters more properly dealt with under Papua New Guinea criminal law, which could lead to wrongful denial of refugee status", and
8(C) "There is a serious risk that the forcible removal of an asylum seeker from Papua New Guinea may violate international law"; and*
(b) agrees that the Papua New Guinea refugee status determination process is inconsistent with international law, and opposes the forced deportation from Papua New Guinea of people who have sought asylum in Australia.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in favour of reading the bill for a second time. Now the Senate can discuss the bill in more detail.
What is the bill's main idea?
The purpose of the bill is to make changes, such as:
- making it so that the asylum seeker has the responsibility to specify all particulars of a protection claim and provide sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims (basically, the onus is on the asylum seeker)
- creating grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant refuses or fails to establish their identity, nationality or citizenship, and does not have a reasonable explanation for doing so
- create grounds to refuse a protection visa application when an applicant provides "bogus" documents to establish their identity or either destroys or discards identity evidence, or has caused that evidence to be destroyed or discarded
- clarify that a family member of a protection visa holder cannot be granted a protection visa on the basis of being a family member if they apply after the initial visa has been granted
Read more about the bill's main idea in the bills digest.
|
No
|
No
|
Passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority agreed that schedule 5 should remain as it is (in parliamentary jargon, they voted that "schedule 5 stand as printed"). This question was put to the Senate after Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced a motion to oppose the schedule.
What is Schedule 5?
This schedule makes changes that may go against some of Australia's international law obligations, particularly in respect to non-refoulement and the definition of a refugee.
Non-refoulement
The non-refoulement obligation stops Australia from sending people to places where their lives or freedoms are threatened. Australia has this obligation 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.
Schedule 5 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.
Refugee definition
Under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is any person who:
'owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.'
Schedule 5 inserts new definitions for some of these requirements, including new definitions of ‘well-founded fear’ and ‘membership of a particular social group other than family’. It also removes several references to the Refugee Convention from the Migration Act.
The bills digest suggests that these changes have been made "at the very least to limit Australia’s obligations under the [Refugee] Convention and curtail the way in which such obligations are interpreted by the judiciary".
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)
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.
|
No
|
No (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority agreed with Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash's amendments to "contribute to the overall integrity of the bill and demonstrate the government's willingness to work with stakeholders to pass this critical legislation" (see Senator Cash's full contribution).
What are the amendments?
The amendments cover several aspects of the bill, including allowing temporary protection visa holders to travel outside Australia in compassionate and compelling circumstances, as determined by the Minister (see the explanatory memorandum).
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.
|
No
|
No
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority agreed to create a Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV) (read more about the amendments in the explanatory memorandum). The Government proposed this visa after reaching a deal with the Palmer United Party (see ABC News).
What is the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa?
The bills digest explains that the detail of the SHEV will be put into the Migration Regulations after this bill is passed so the bill itself doesn't include much information about the visa. However, the Minister has said that:
'... the SHEV will be a temporary visa available to people from the legacy caseload [that is, asylum seekers who arrived by boat between August 2012 and December 2013 and haven't been transferred to Nauru or Manus Island] who are found to be refugees, as an alternative to a TPV [Temporary Protection Visa], and will be valid for five years. Persons granted a SHEV will be required to live in a ‘designated region’ and encouraged to fill job vacancies in regional areas. ... Visa holders will have the same access to Medicare and social security as TPV holders, but those who can show they have worked in a regional area without accessing income support for three and a half years will be permitted to apply for other onshore visas, such as family and skilled visas (but not permanent protection visas).' (Read more in the bills digest)
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.
|
No
|
No
|
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 Senate 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.
|
No
|
No (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority disagreed that the government can and should process the 30,000 unprocessed asylum seeker claims immediately and also immediately release all children from immigration detention. This motion was proposed by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert on behalf of Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Background to the motion
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison told cross-benchers such as Motoring Enthusiast Party Senator Ricky Muir that "if this bill does not pass, the 30,000 people currently awaiting processing will continue to be left in limbo ... [and] the 1,550 people who arrived between 19 July 2013 and the election would be sent to Nauru" (see Senator Muir's contribution). Senator Muir said that, in light of the Minister's comments, he was left with "one of the hardest decisions I have had to face—a choice between a bad option and a worse option" (see his contribution). In the end, he said he would support the bill (that is, take the bad option) (see ABC News for more information).
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said there are currently 559 children in Australian-based detention centres and 167 children detained on Nauru. She condemned Minister Morrison for "using the suffering of these children in detention as a disgusting bargaining chip" to pressure cross-benchers like Senator Muir into passing the bill (see her whole contribution). With this motion, the Greens were trying to get the Senate to acknowledge that the Immigration Minister could release these children and process the remaining applications immediately (that is, without waiting for this bill to be passed) and to urge him to do so.
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
|
Not passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority agreed to pass the bill in the Senate (in parliamentary jargon, they voted in favour of giving the bill a third reading). The bill will now be sent back to the House of Representatives for the Members of Parliament to decide whether they agree with the Senators' amendments. If so, the bill will become law.
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.
|
No
|
No (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority agreed with the bill as it has been amended during the Committee stage. This means that the majority want to stop discussing the detail of the bill and now want to vote on whether to pass it in the Senate.
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.
|
No
|
No (strong)
|
Passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority didn't want to challenge the Government's decision to stop resettlement of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) approved refugees from Indonesia after 1 July 2014.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young had introduced a motion that asked the Government "to reverse the decision and instead work collaboratively with our neighbours, accelerate refugee processing and increase Australia's intake from the region".
Wording of the motion
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the Government's decision to no longer resettle United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) approved refugees from Indonesia after 1 July 2014;
(b) recognises that there are more than 10,000 asylum seekers and refugees already registered with the UNHCR in Indonesia awaiting resettlement;
(c) calls on the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Mr Morrison) to heed the requests of Indonesia and urgently meet with his counterparts regarding the Australian Government's decision; and
(d) calls on the Government to reverse the decision and instead work collaboratively with our neighbours, accelerate refugee processing and increase Australia's intake from the region.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion to disallow Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2014. In other words, they wanted the Regulation to keep having legal force.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the motion, explained:
The Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2014 includes a number of elements. It is primarily about punishing vulnerable children who have arrived in Australia on their own, some orphaned, without families, and others who have had to leave their family in escaping war, torture and persecution. Those children who are now already in Australia—who have been found to be genuine refugees, who we have acknowledged, after proper assessment, need and deserve Australia's protection—are being punished through this regulation by the government in removing the special criterion which applied to them in being able to be reunited with their families. The regulation applies to children who, as I have said, are already here.
Motion text
That the Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2014, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2014 No. 32 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. The motion was:
"That the Senate calls on the Government to cease the current 'on water' screening and transfers of asylum seekers which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said fall well short of Australia's international obligations and could mean that asylum seekers were returned, or refouled, to persecution."
Background to the motion
By "'on water' screening and transfers", Senator Hanson-Young is referring to two recent incidents involving asylum seeker boats intercepted by Australian Customs.
The first involved an asylum seeker boat that carried 41 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, including four Tamils. The boat was intercepted by Australian Customs and their claims for asylum were assessed via teleconference at sea. Only one was found to have a case for seeking asylum, but the Government says they chose to return to Sri Lanka with the others after being told they would be sent to Manus Island or Nauru. All 41 people were transferred to the Sri Lankan navy and are now facing charges in a Sri Lankan Court.(Read more about the 41 people returned to Sri Lanka by Australian Customs here.)
The second incident involved a boat that carried 153 asylum seekers, including young children. The boat was also intercepted by Australian Customs but a High Court interim injunction blocked them from transferring the asylum seekers to Sri Lanka.(Read more about the High Court interim injunction here. ) The Government has undertaken to give three days' notice before returning the asylum seekers. Currently, the 153 asylum seekers are aboard a Customs vessel in an unknown location and it is unclear whether they will stay there until their case can proceed through the High Court.(Read more about the standoff in the High Court here.)
Australia's international protection obligations include the principle of non-refoulement, which ABC News explained as "UN-speak for not turning away a refugee without a fair hearing, a key tenet of the 1951 Refugee Convention".(Read the whole ABC News article here.)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a small majority
|
|
Show detail
The same number of senators voted in favour and against part (b) of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This means that the motion was unsuccessful as a majority was not reached. The motion was:
That the Senate-
[...]
(b) calls on the Government to cease the current 'on water' screening and transfer practices which fall short of Australia's international protection obligations.
This is the second part of Senator Hanson-Young's motion. The first part, part (a), was voted on previously.(See the division on part (a) here. )
Background to the motion
By "'on water' screening and transfer practices", Senator Hanson-Young is referring to two recent incidents involving asylum seeker boats intercepted by Australian Customs.
The first involved an asylum seeker boat that carried 41 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, including four Tamils. The boat was intercepted by Australian Customs and their claims for asylum were assessed via teleconference at sea. Only one was found to have a case for seeking asylum, but the Government says they chose to return to Sri Lanka with the others after being told they would be sent to Manus Island or Nauru. All 41 people were transferred to the Sri Lankan navy and are now facing charges in a Sri Lankan Court.(Read more about the 41 people returned to Sri Lanka by Australian Customs here.)
The second incident involved a boat that carried 153 asylum seekers, including young children. The boat was also intercepted by Australian Customs but a High Court interim injunction blocked them from transferring the asylum seekers to Sri Lanka.(Read more about the High Court interim injunction here. ) The Government has undertaken to give three days' notice before returning the asylum seekers. Currently, the 153 asylum seekers are aboard a Customs vessel in an unknown location and it is unclear whether they will stay there until their case can proceed through the High Court.(Read more about the standoff in the High Court here. )
Australia's international protection obligations include the principle of non-refoulement, which ABC News explained as "UN-speak for not turning away a refugee without a fair hearing, a key tenet of the 1951 Refugee Convention".(Read the whole ABC News article here.)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's motion to disallow the Migration Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 5). In other words, they voted against getting rid of that Regulation so that it was no longer law.
Senator Hanson-Young explains that this Regulation:
amends the migration regulation so that any person who arrives by boat cannot seek family reunion under the Special Humanitarian Program.
She gives several reasons for why she wanted this Regulation disallowed.
Motion text
That the Migration Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 5), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 230 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. The motion was "That the Senate calls on the Government to give asylum seekers and refugees the legal right to work."
Because the majority voted against the motion, it was unsuccessful.
Background to the motion
Four days before this division took place, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ('UNHCR') criticised the federal government for denying refugees on its new bridging visas.(Read more about the UNHCR's criticisms here. )
Article 17 of the Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed and ratified, states that "Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the most favourable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances, as regards the right to engage in wage-earning employment."(You can read Article 17 here. ) This means that Australia is arguably breaching the Convention by preventing refugees and asylum seekers the right to work.(Read more about Australia's breach of the Refugee Convention in respect of the right to work on Crikey here.)
References
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against an amendment proposed by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
This amendment would require that the Immigration Minister consider the Australian national interest and obligations under international law. Additionally, this amendment would require that asylum seekers will:
- be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law
- have appropriate accommodation
- have access to appropriate physical and mental health services
- have access to educational and vocational training programs
- be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application
- be able to appeal asylum claim or visa application decisions
This amendment would also require that the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the processing country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.
Background to the bill
This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship () 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 for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island, and alters 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 by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.
References
|
Yes
|
Yes (strong)
|
Not passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne.
Among other things, the amendments would have increased Australia's refugee intake, increased funding to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and call for Australia to enter discussions with Indonesia relating to refugees.
Someone who votes aye in this division supports these amendments. The majority voted no in this amendment so it was unsuccessful.
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 () 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
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This means that the motion was rejected.
The motion was:
That the Senate-
(a) notes the current dismal state of debate on asylum seeker policy in Australia with:
(i) the Prime Minister ( Ms Gillard) calling the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Abbott) hypocritical, and
(ii) the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) calling the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) hypocritical; and
(b) calls for Australia's international refugee obligations to be respected.(Australia's international refugee obligations stem from refugee law and specifically the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ('Refugees Convention') and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ('Refugees Protocol').)
References
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA), which means it failed.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) 20 June 2010 marks World Refugee Day 2010,
(ii) the global theme for 2010 is ‘Home’, in recognition of the plight of more than 40 million uprooted people around the world, and
(iii) as a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention Relating to the Status on Refugees, Australia is obliged to protect those seeking asylum from persecution;
(b) notes, with concern:
(i) the Government’s commitment to reopening desert detention centres across the country, and
(ii) the effect that the suspension of processing claims for asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan will have on the mental health of some of the worlds most vulnerable; and
(c) calls on the Government to immediately lift the imposed suspension and process all claims for asylum, irrespective of race or ethnicity.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This means that the motion was unsuccessful.
The motion was:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the recent decision by the Rudd Government to suspend the processing of asylum claims from Sri Lankan and Afghan nationals for 3 and 6 months respectively, and(Read more about this policy on SBS News and on ABC's The World Today and on Wikipedia. )
(ii) in 2009, Australia received just 1.6 per cent of all asylum claims lodged in the world’s 44 industrialised nations, with less than half of this number arriving by boat;
(b) recognises that this new policy is in breach of Australia’s international obligations under the:
(i) United Nations Refugee Convention,
(ii) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(iii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(c) congratulates the joint statement from 45 non-government organisations from 16 countries, in condemning the Australian Government’s decision to suspend the processing of asylum claims for Sri Lankans and Afghans; and(Read more about this joint statement here.)
(d) calls on the Government to immediately reverse its suspension of asylum applications, restoring the right of people seeking protection from persecution to have their claims assessed in a fair and timely manner.
References
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which means the motion failed.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) more than 240 Tamil asylum seekers remain on their boat in the Indonesian port of Merak, in increasingly squalid conditions after more than 3 months, and
(ii) this boat was intercepted by Indonesia at Australia’s request in October 2009;
(b) recognises:
(i) of the 240 on board, 100 have been found to be genuine refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, yet they are afraid to leave the boat under the threat of removal to Indonesian detention centres, and
(ii) Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; and
(c) calls on the Government to immediately step in and end the standoff over the Tamil asylum-seekers who have been left in squalid conditions on a boat at Merak, Indonesia for 115 days.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA), which means it failed.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) recognises each senator’s role as community leaders and the collective responsibility to conduct debates on matters of public importance in a respectful and accurate manner, using language that is constructive and appropriate; and
(b) agrees that all debate on the issue of asylum seekers and border protection is framed within the law, terms and definitions of the:
(a) United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951);
(b) Migration Act 1958;
(c) Criminal Code Act 1995;
(d) Racial Discrimination Act 1975; and
(e) Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not passed by a large majority
|
