Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to a direction to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to a direction to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

The motion that I move seeks to direct the Senate and have the Senate direct the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing today of not less than two hours duration for the purpose of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The coalition moves this motion in an attempt to strike a responsible balance. We have today been presented with legislation, as has the parliament, by the government. We had not seen this legislation prior to today. At 7.30 am, it was provided to the opposition. We were told there would be a briefing at 8 am. That was a short briefing. During that time, we discovered that the bill had a time and date on it of last Friday, despite only being provided to the opposition today. But, nonetheless, the government has said to us that they believe it is imperative this legislation pass this parliament, they said, today, or at least this week.

We wish to test the government's propositions in terms of the validity of their legislation and in terms of the necessity of the time frame that they have presented for the passage of this legislation; hence we have taken the unusual step of presenting this motion that will provide for a proper hearing, a public hearing, a transparent hearing, with the Department of Home Affairs to take place today to scrutinise the legislation and to scrutinise the proposition of the government that it needs to pass the parliament this week. Of course we would have much preferred this legislation if it was ready last Friday—as appears to have been the case, based on the date stamp upon it—to have been provided to the parliament at an earlier juncture, so there could have been a more fulsome, thorough and normal parliamentary inquiry taking place.

I know that those elsewhere around the chamber will variously move amendments, seeking to have what would be a more normal inquiry in relation to this bill. We understand their intent. We understand their desire. That would be the preference, were it not the second-to-last sitting day of this parliamentary session and the last sitting week prior to significant legal determinations likely to be handed down, in relation to which the government may wish to use measures in this legislation. That's why we seek to take the responsible and balanced approach from the opposition's perspective to give this bill the scrutiny that we can and to do so in the open, public, accountable and transparent place of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to inform the deliberations that we and all senators can bring to bear tomorrow. We've of course structured this in such a way that, if the Senate comes to a conclusion to not give passage to this legislation tomorrow, it could be subject to a more fulsome and normal inquiry over the weeks that follow.

However, given the importance the government claims to place on having this legislation passed in the national interest in such a short period of time, we have sought to provide for at least the opportunity for the coalition and the opposition to reassure ourselves of the merits of the government's arguments, the merits of the government's legislation and the proposition put by the government that this needs to be passed. If reassured satisfactorily of those matters, subject to amendments, potentially, or otherwise, then it could pass this week in keeping with the government's claims. If we are not assured or convinced, as I said, there is the opportunity for the Senate to either reject it outright or to subject it to a normal passage of full committee scrutiny.

I'd invite those on the crossbench, even those who have a preference for a full committee inquiry, to recognise that this is a good faith attempt in terms of trying to deal across the aisle between the opposition and the government to give the Senate the chance for scrutiny and that it doesn't prejudge the possibility of further consideration by the committee and, of course, by this chamber. (Time expired)