Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a sham this whole process is. This is a marathon—no, it's not a marathon; it's an ultramarathon in incompetence. It dates back to last May, and here we are today facing more and more incompetence. What a complete and utter mess.

Let's look at the process that we went through today. At 7.30 am, we had some legislation dropped off to us, and we were told that there would be a briefing at eight o'clock. That legislation, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, was ready, and it had a time and date on it: last Friday. Now, did the minister come to us and say, 'Okay, we want to give you this legislation so that you can look at it over the weekend and so that you can make sure there are no unintended consequences'? No, he did not. He sat on it over the weekend. He sat on it yesterday. Then he presented it to us today.

That is incompetence because, if it's not considered properly, if we can't look at the detail, if we can't make sure that there are no unintended consequences, this legislation might not do the job that the minister is hoping that it will do. That is why we have called on the government to have an inquiry in the Senate tonight. I hope that the government will support that enquiry. I hope that the crossbenchers will make sure that they support that enquiry. Although we only have limited time to look at this, we need that time to make sure we can interrogate this bill.

Let's look at the minister's track record when it comes to legislation going through this House and through this parliament. Let's look at his failure, on three key times, to turn up to legal briefings from his own department, which led us to the mess that we are in today. That in and of itself should be enough for the Prime Minister to have acted, but he hasn't. That's why we're sitting here today having to consider, debate and discuss a piece of legislation that we received at 7.30 am.

This piece of legislation was prepared and ready to go last Friday, yet the minister decided: 'Oh, no, I've got to be really careful. I don't want anything that I'm doing properly scrutinised or properly looked out, because it might show, once again, the errors of my ways.' That is the problem. When you have a minister in witness protection, a minister who can't even front up to the media today to say, 'We're going to be introducing this legislation. This is what it will do,' you end up getting mistake after mistake. That is why we want an inquiry tonight. We want that inquiry in the Senate so that at least we've got some time to be able to grill the department and see whether this legislation will do what it's set out to do and won't lead to unintended consequences.

What is one of our greatest fears when it comes to the botched and chaotic way that this legislation continues to be produced? You have to remember, I think this is the fourth or the fifth time that we've had rushed legislation put into this place. That is why we want it looked at. One of the serious unintended consequences that we are very, very concerned about is what this chaotic and botched approach is going to do to people smugglers. Our great fear—and, sadly, we saw this last Friday—is that we are going to see the people smugglers get their model going again. We really need to be able to drill down on this legislation to make sure that it's not providing that incentive. We've already seen boats arrive on the mainland and we saw, tragically, people drowning at sea last Friday. We have to be very conscious that this legislation and the way it's been drafted—the chaotic way the minister continues to do his job—doesn't provide perverse incentives for the boats to start up again, because no-one in this place wants to see that happening.

But, sadly, the way the government has approached this issue, dating back to the autumn of last year, has seen the people smugglers get their business model up and running again. That is our gravest concern when it comes to this legislation, and that is why we want to make sure we can get the department before a Senate hearing and grill them to make sure the chaotic and dysfunctional approach the government is taking won't lead to the type of unintended consequences that none of us want to see. When it comes to the way this government has handled immigration, the Australian people want the confidence that the government are getting something right, and so far they haven't been able to get anything right. The approach they're taking, the processes they're using, the botched and rushed way they're doing this gives the Australian people no confidence whatsoever that the immigration portfolio is being handled in a way that protects their safety.

I say to the minister and I say to the government: when your No. 1 priority is to keep the Australian community safe, they deserve better than what you're dishing up at the moment; they deserve much, much better. The fact that you would produce this legislation in the way and the form that you have shows that you have no idea what you are doing. What the Australian people want to see when it comes to their protection is a methodical approach, a considered approach, an approach where you go out and where you consult, an approach where, if you need bipartisanship, you just don't ram it down people's throats. That is what the Australian people are looking for when it comes to their safety.

Instead, the Australian people have now had, dating back to last autumn, error, mistake and buffoonery from the government the whole time, and they deserve better than that. So, I say to the minister: if you are going to get anything right and do something correctly in your portfolio, you need to make sure your government agrees to an inquiry tonight so that we have some time to consider this bill, some time to consult on this bill and then some time to interrogate your department on this bill. The sad reality is that we know that your track record of attending legal briefings is three-zip—three legal briefings, zero times attending those legal briefings. It is simply not good enough. We want to make sure you are doing your job, because there is no more important job than keeping the Australian community safe.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm rising to raise a number of concerns with the piece of legislation that has been put before the House, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Had there been more time, I may have actually moved a second reading amendment on it. Given that time does not allow for that process, at this point in time I would like to make the following points.

Upon reviewing the piece of legislation that was provided to us this morning, I think there are a number of key weaknesses. The first of them is the breadth of the legislation. While it would appear that the immediate justification or impetus for this bill is the need to deal with the NZYQ affected cohort and, in particular, the pending litigation in the High Court examining whether people who are refusing to cooperate with their removal fall under the test for release put forward in NZYQ, the bill goes far beyond that by targeting anyone on a removal pathway. That includes unlawful noncitizens; those that are on a bridging removal pending visa, or BVR holders as they're called; those on a bridging general visa, a BVE holder; and, extraordinarily, any other noncitizens prescribed in the Migration Regulations, which would allow the minister to basically designate other cohorts to be added.

At a minimum, I think this bill should be revised to only apply to the NZYQ affected cohort, noting that the previous bills relating to the monitoring conditions and the preventative detention disorders, moved in this House in a very similar fashion, were limited to that cohort. There's a real risk under this legislation that people with whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations will be forced, through criminal sanctions, to cooperate in their removal to countries where they face persecution.

Section 119(4)(b) of subdivision E makes it clear that, even when someone is a person with respect to whom Australia has a non-refoulement obligation, that's not a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. What is the justification for including this provision, and what measures has or will the government take to ensure that people are not returned to countries where they'll face persecution?

The second point I'd like to make is that we know as a parliament and we know as a country that our asylum processes do not always get it right, particularly for those who have been subject to the fast-track procedures that we know were unfair. Where the process fails to accurately identify protection needs, applicants will be forced to cooperate in their removal to a country where they may face persecution.

The third point is that this act should concern us all when it comes to the welfare of children. Under this reformed legislation, parents and guardians will be forced, through the threat of criminal sanction, to take actions in aid of having their children removed from Australia. This violates the foundational principle under the international law in relation to the best interests of the child.

Ultimately, Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. We are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By passing laws like this, we do our country and our citizenry a disservice.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again. The government is trying to bind up a weeping sore with rushed, reflexive legislation in a portfolio that they do not control, and they are panicked. You can sense the panic across the table. Fundamentally, this is about leadership, or rather the absence of leadership—which is really just another way of saying 'bad leadership'. We have a hapless minister for immigration presiding over a debacle running since the middle of last year in his portfolio, and time and time again we see this minister unable to impose himself on the situation.

Governing a country requires dynamic, responsive leadership not just at the top but across all portfolios, and we're not seeing that at all in the immigration portfolio. Sadly, what we see instead is a flat-footed, confused, panicked minister and this bill, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, briefed to the coalition at 7.30 am for just 20 minutes. That happened this morning, and the Australian people deserve better than this. They expect us to be transparent and accountable when we pass bills of this consequence. This government has been floundering since the middle of last year. They have been unable to anticipate events as they unfold, with grave consequences for the Australian community.

The handling of the NZYQ case was a case study in failed government. This government has had from the middle of last year, when the High Court had a directions hearing on NZYQ, and it was plain to see then that there would be issues with this case and others like it. Yet did the minister act? No, he did nothing—no legislation, no prudential action to protect the Australian community. At every turn it's been up to the opposition to lead the government. It was the member for Wannon, Senator Paterson in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition leading and guiding the government on legislative responses to the case at hand. The opposition has been leading. It's been the tail wagging the dog, which is frankly not good enough from this government.

Even then, the government failed to act. We saw 149 criminals, murderers, sex offenders and paedophiles, among others, released into the Australian community—you can't make this up. It's shameful. Now we see the government flapping in anticipation of the High Court ruling in ASF17, the case of an Iranian man who has refused to cooperate with authorities in Australia and been found not to be owed protection. If he is successful in his case, it could have implications for hundreds more people currently in immigration detention in this country who would be released into the community on the basis that their detention is indefinite because they refused to cooperate with Australia's efforts to deport them.

So here we are—new legislation, briefed this morning at 7.30 am for only 20 minutes, rushed. I'm confident the crossbench hasn't had a briefing. It's right that we call for a Senate inquiry immediately into this bill. You've got the Greens and their affiliates on the crossbench firing their cannons, and they have a point; there's been no due process and no Senate inquiry. But we part company there with the crossbench, because we believe in strong borders on this side of the House. It was the coalition who stopped the boats after the debacle of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. And now Labor, since coming to power, are weakening our borders. That weakness is provocative, and we see that because we've seen 12 or 13 boats arrive on Australian shores since May 2022.

This bill gives the minister significant powers to direct cooperation of noncitizens in their removal from this country. There's power in this bill, but this bill can't substitute for strong prudent government and leadership from the Albanese government. This minister is weak; he's unable to impose himself on the situation, and he is now seeking to slam rushed legislation through both houses without an inquiry. It's not good enough, and the Australian people deserve better. They deserve transparency and accountability. The side of the House is calling for a Senate inquiry immediately because we all deserve better from this government.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in this House to register my dissent to this bill, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I'm now hearing arguments from the opposition that, quite frankly, are so disingenuous. If you genuinely have concerns with this bill, why not support our call for an adjournment? Why rush an inquiry tonight under the cover of darkness? Why not do this properly?

This bill is setting up a removal pathway for noncitizens. Under the bill, the minister can designate a country that refuses to accept involuntary removals and then order a person in Australia from that country who has so far refused to leave Australia to take steps to facilitate their removal. Failure to do so then incurs mandatory sentencing of 12 months. Mandatory sentencing is a very serious law. To be clear, a person who refuses to comply with the minister's direction to apply for a passport will be charged with an offence that attracts at least 12 months in prison. This is not something we give a few minutes of thought to, I would've thought.

I understand there are people in Australia who have exhausted all visa options and have no legal right to be here. I understand there is a problem here to be solved. But, I've got to say, the minister this morning gave no indication and no clarity around the urgency of slamming this legislation through this House with barely a moment for members to consider the legislation or read an explanatory memorandum, let alone have an opportunity to speak in this House. What a disgrace! A suspension of standing orders, a gag motion, a whole raft of explanations of such paucity of logic from this government to justify why our democracy can't operate as it should, a democracy that supposedly allows any member of the House of Representatives to stand and give their view on a piece of legislation—seriously, I can't believe it. I came to the last parliament, where I heard the opposition, now the government, screaming blue murder when the coalition tried to do things like this, and here we are, with something as consequential as an immigration bill such as this—something on which the Kaldor Centre quite rapidly sent information through in the last few minutes saying that they believe this is quite possibly the most egregious of all the rushed immigration bills that have come before us in the last few months.

Consider this. We have rushed through this House legislation which is now being challenged constitutionally. We are all conscientious legislators—that's why we've been sent here—and being a conscientious legislator means that you give due consideration to the legislation that's before you. What a joke! As if we can do that in less than a couple of hours! Then, even if we could do that—and I pay tribute to the member for North Sydney, who got a pretty good grip on this pretty fast—we don't even get the chance to speak about it if we want to.

I'm not going to continue, because I know I have other colleagues who want to say something, but I just want to say that if this is the best democracy that this Labor government can give us on an issue as important as immigration then I am sorely disappointed in this Labor government, and I'm sure that my constituents are too. Australia, if you are listening, you need to be worried.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a rare change in this place, I find myself agreeing with the shadow minister for immigration that this is chaotic and dysfunctional and that there may be unintended consequences. I think the ones that I'm concerned about are probably quite different to the ones he's concerned about, though. Like everyone else in this place, I'm deeply concerned to ensure the safety of my community. I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Indi that there is a problem to solve here, but this is the third time that we've been asked to support legislation designed to address the High Court's insistence that sentencing is a matter for the courts, not a decision for governments, and each time that legislation has proved vulnerable to further High Court action.

Once again, we are asked to consider a profound change to our migration laws—the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024—not in less than 24 hours, not in less than 12 hours but in roughly four hours. I hear the opposition complaining about getting the bill at 7.30. Well, it was handed to the crossbench at 8.45 this morning. The opposition are jumping up and down and complaining. Firstly, they could have backed an adjournment in order for due consideration to happen, and they still have the option of rejecting the bill outright.

The initial assessment of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is that this kneejerk legislation criminalises refugees who've already been through a broken system and potentially forces people to return to countries where they face persecution and even death. I have been to some of these countries, and these risks are real. This is not some esoteric idea. If we make a mistake here, people may be sent back to countries and murdered. If we rush this through and that happens, that's on us. These laws are potentially against international law, as the concept of 'removal concern country' prevents people from seeking asylum in Australia if they are from certain countries—countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar and Iran, which are high-refugee-producing countries. This is incredibly concerning.

Again, of course, the legislation is trying to get around this High Court decision by criminalising individuals who refuse to cooperate with efforts to remove them from country and then receive mandatory minimum sentences, against existing government policy. Lawyers that I've had time to consult in the intervening hours since receiving this bill described this as 'executive overreach', 'an attempt to criminalise an executive order', 'discriminatory', 'dangerous', 'draconian' and 'potentially unconstitutional'.

Yet again, the government is responding out of fear—fear of being vilified by the coalition. Well, that is going to happen anyway. Whatever the government does will not be enough. Lead from the front, with humanity at the centre of your policy.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation—the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024—and this debate today just demonstrate once again how this Labor government cannot be trusted when it comes to keeping Australians safe and cannot be trusted to maintain the security of our borders. As the shadow minister said, it's an ultramarathon of incompetence. It's a complete and utter mess.

Here we have yet another stopgap measure, another rushed piece of legislation to clean up after the High Court's ruling last year. I can't even remember how many times we've been put in this position since then. It feels like it's been every other sitting week. We were even called back to this place after last year was done and dusted for an unscheduled sitting to deal with the issue. The Albanese Labor government released dangerous criminals—convicted paedophiles, rapists and violent offenders—out of detention and into the community. They knew the High Court case was coming and they knew they might lose it, yet they didn't do anything to address the potential unintended outcomes.

Here we are today with more emergency measures to clean up after their bungled mess in addressing this issue. What's worse about the situation here today is that the government has sat on the bill for days. The bill is dated Friday. The opposition only had it dropped off to us at 7.30 this morning. The shadow ministers were only given a short briefing—half an hour. It's just not good enough. This is the safety and security of the Australian people we're talking about. I've said it before, and the reasons for saying it again keep growing by the day: this minister is out of his depth. Those opposite don't know what they are doing. They're not keeping the community safe. They're using the parliament as their plaything to save face before the Australian public, hopefully before they notice anything. It's not good enough, and this government must do better.

It is the first priority of any government to keep the Australian people safe, and we in the opposition will continue to support the government in doing anything that keeps Australians safe. Of course we'll support reasonable measures that will see people who have no right to be in Australia removed from our country, but we have to keep making sure we're aware of the unintended consequences. You can't address unintended consequences without the proper time for examination, which is exactly what we're seeing here today. What happens when you do this with such important legislation? It ends up facing challenges in the court.

We've seen this played out with similar legislation that we've been forced to rush through this place over the last few months. Here is what the Australian reported last week:

Strict monitoring and curfew conditions placed on detainees released from indefinite detention are "vulnerable" to constitutional challenge …

Lawyers for YBFZ, a … man charged with breaching his curfew and failing to recharge his electronic ankle bracelet, have launched a High Court challenge to conditions imposed on him following his release from detention in November.

The report goes on to say in general about these cases:

A number of legal challenges to the monitoring and curfew conditions have not proceeded, with the government in each instance changing visa conditions rather than risk another High Court defeat.

I could not have summarised the chaotic nature of this government's approach better.

We remain extremely concerned about the rushed process and this government's shabby approach to an issue as important as border protection and national security. The stakes do not get much higher than this. This is why we need more time to scrutinise this bill, to identify the potential unintended consequences. That's why we need an inquiry and why the government should support the upcoming amendment. This government is failing to keep its people safe. Rushed-through legislation that doesn't have proper scrutiny could end up in catastrophic failures. We have seen convicted criminals lost by this government. We've seen a hapless minister not talk to the media or the Australian people and barely answer any questions in question time. It is simply not good enough. The Australian people deserve better. The Australian people deserve answers from this weak Labor government. I believe the minister has not addressed any of these concerns and should resign.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll speak briefly. This government is becoming harder and harder to respect. What we're seeing today is legislation by knee jerk. We're seeing legislation introduced because the government fears the political response from the other side of the chamber, whereas it really should be fearing the human rights response and the will of the people.

Our constituents deserve for their representatives to have the opportunity to spend more than two hours with a piece of legislation that includes mandatory sentencing and that will potentially force people back to countries where they will face persecution. This is a democracy, but the government in its own words today has said that it seeks autocratic powers. I would suggest that the unintended consequence of this legislation will be the loss of the government's integrity.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes that:

(1) the Government is seeking to rush through legislation that will punish people, based on what country they come from and harm people seeking asylum who have already been subjected to a cruel and broken system; and

(2) this bill is nothing more than an election tactic by the Government, trying to outflank the Coalition in a race to the bottom on immigration, which will only punish migrants and whip up racism".

We have been given 40 minutes to debate the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill. The consequences of this legislation will see the minister able to go to a mum who has fled Iran and who is desperately trying to keep her kids in Australia to be safe and tell them, 'You have to sign passport papers for your kids to send them and you back to Iran, where you could face persecution—'even death, in some countries—'and if you do not sign those papers, we will give you a mandatory minimum year sentence in prison and up to five years.' This is outrageous. This is worse than anything that Dutton or Morrison ever came up with under the previous government.

There are people who have been in Australia for a decade, who have raised their kids here, who will be subject to this law. It's deeply, deeply outrageous. Labor, in their own platform said: 'Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, leads to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice.' What are all the Labor backbenchers going to say to all their members? What are they going to say to them? These are Labor members who thought they were supporting a party that opposed mandatory sentencing. If you're a Labor member watching this right now, if you're a Labor backbencher watching this right now, what actually does your party stand for?

Labor is rushing this bill through in 40 minutes with no chance for debate, no chance for scrutiny. Instead what we're going to see are families broken up by this bill, lives destroyed, people facing desperate and unfair persecution. This is a bill that will exact untold cruelty on people seeking asylum. It will give the minister outrageous powers. What will happen when we have some future Liberal government where Dutton has these powers? What's going to happen then? This government should be deeply ashamed. The cruelty this will exact on people is unfathomable. You should all be ashamed of breaking your promise not only to your electorate but to your members as well.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday I was asked to present to senior public servants about what makes good policy and what I want as a legislator. I said, 'What I need from good policy is that it's evidence based, that I can consult my community, that I can engage stakeholders and that I can assess the policy on its merits. Today we have been given absolutely none of this. We have not been given the evidence. We have not had a moment of time to talk to our community. And the stakeholder engagement has been absolutely cursory because we've basically had three hours in which to consider this legislation. It is an absolutely impossible way to pass wideranging and profound legislation.

This legislation goes to people's lives. It goes to people being locked up in prison, and it has the potential to impact tens of thousands of people. That's a profound responsibility that we in the House hold in this piece of legislation, and it is unacceptable to have so little time to consider it. I absolutely acknowledge the need to have a way to remove the people who do not have the right to live in Australia, but this is not the way to do that. I know the government knows better than to behave like this.

In the last few days in this parliament I heard the government complaining about the crossbench not being fair about the work that they do or assuming negative intent. And, honestly, when the government pushes through legislation, as they are doing right now, it is easy to see why we can become cynical in terms of what is being done.

This legislation could have a profound impact on people's lives. It should not be passed in this way. The opposition is being absolutely disingenuous by not supporting a motion for adjournment on this, because they know full well that that would be the most appropriate thing that they could do at this time: to hold the debate until everyone can consider the legislation properly. But they haven't done that. It's just of great concern, on both sides.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise now because it's incredibly unclear, even on the government's current procedure, whether we are going to get an opportunity to move amendments, in consideration in detail, to this appalling legislation, or even get an opportunity to be heard, because the government has decided, in an autocratic way, that everything will just be gagged at 1.40 this afternoon. So, on legislation that we received at 8.45 this morning, with very limited time to consider, we're now in an incredibly truncated debate. As to all the protestations from the coalition, the opposition, please: support an adjournment motion. If you do not, it is hypocrisy to come in here complaining about not having enough time to consider legislation.

Let's be clear, for the Australian people, what this legislation will do. It is knee-jerk legislation that criminalises refugees who've already been through a broken system—thank you to the opposition!—and, in many cases, it fails to recognise people's legitimate refugee claims, and, potentially, forces people to return to countries where they face persecution and even death. There is no recognition that a lot of people who will be subjected to this have extensive and deep connections to Australia. It is completely unnecessary for this legislation to be pushed through.

We know that there are many people that will be caught by this legislation. It goes vastly beyond just the knee-jerk reaction to the High Court decision. It's an extraordinary step to exclude entire nations from access to visa applications, and to harm families, individuals, businesses and communities. Fundamentally, these laws place Australia at even greater risk of forcibly returning refugees to harm, including many refugees failed by the fast-track system which the Labor government agrees was unfair and flawed and yet is continuing with an unfair, flawed process and system.

We must do better. Bring on the next election as soon as possible, because the Labor government will certainly be judged on the legacy of this.

Now, because I have no idea if I will even have an opportunity to move the consideration in detail, I'd like to point out to the Australian people and the House that I will seek to move an amendment to at least try to protect women who are facing domestic violence and homelessness situations, who have increased vulnerability to deportation. Women who are on a removal pathway and who are experiencing domestic violence and abuse might find it challenging to comply with directives aimed at facilitating their removal from Australia. Obtaining a passport or attending meetings will prove incredibly difficult. There's a fear of seeking help, and the requirement for mandatory cooperation with removal efforts and the associated penalties for noncompliance will deter women in abusive situations from seeking help. We already know that CALD women face additional barriers to reporting, partly due to their fears in relation to their visa status.

We hear a lot from every party, especially the Labor Party, around domestic violence, raising the rights of women, and yet they are trashing them again with this bill—unless the government is going to agree to the amendment, at the very minimum, to ensure that people who are subject to domestic violence and homelessness are going to be protected from the provisions in this legislation.

It has an impact on legal proceedings. You are trying to circumvent the role of the High Court. Women facing domestic violence are often required to navigate legal processes such as applying for protection orders and custody of children. The legal process through the Family Court can be lengthy and result in orders that children remain in Australia to have contact with a parent or citizen-parent, whilst the mother—most likely the primary carer—will face expulsion from Australia. This legislation entitles you to require her removal while the children are ordered by the court to stay here. Are those seriously your values, members of the ALP? Seriously? Is that what you go to your communities with and say, 'That is what I'm going to do if you put me in government'? There are no safeguards.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In accordance with the resolution, the time for the debate has concluded. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the bill now be read a second time.