Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That consideration of government business continue from 6.50 pm till 7.20 pm today.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That, on Thursday, 16 August 2012:

(a) the hours of meetings shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;

(b) consideration of general business private senators’ bills under temporary order 57(1)(d)(ia) shall not be proceeded with;

(c) the routine of business from 9.30 am for 2 hours and 20 minutes, from 12.45 pm to 2 pm, and from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only and that the order of the day relating to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 shall be considered;

(d) consideration of non-controversial government business under temporary order 57(1)(d)(via) shall not be proceeded with;

(e) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with;

(f) consideration of general business and government documents under standing orders 57(1)(d)(x), (xi) and committee reports and government responses under 57(1)(d)(xii) shall not be proceeded with;

(g) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and

(h) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.

I move the motion, as circulated, that allows for the debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill for tomorrow. Without pre-empting the vote of the Senate, I believe that the majority of senators want this bill dealt with tomorrow. It is widely recognised by the parliament and by the public that this bill is a critical element to resolving the issue of asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat. It is legislation that must be passed as soon as possible.

This is not the time to canvass the substantive matters raised in the bill, but it is the time to pass the motion that will allow us to fully debate the legislation—hopefully commencing this evening but throughout the course of tomorrow. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the motion. The Greens are not part of the push to rush this legislation through the parliament quickly, which is clearly what the government and the coalition are intent on doing. The display we had in question time today was the Minister representing the Prime Minister being unable to answer straightforward questions, namely: does this mean indefinite detention? Does the government mean 10 years for people to be in a detention centre on Nauru? The Minister representing the Prime Minister refused to answer those questions.

There are so many questions associated with the proposed legislation that have not been answered, and it is unlikely that they are going to be answered in the time frame. We are dealing with people's lives here. This is a very serious matter. In fact, it is an insult to those people who have risked their lives and who are actually seeking asylum to think that this parliament would just race a piece of legislation through here without clarity for anyone as to what it actually means for those people or, indeed, what it actually means in relation to our own migration law and what conditions might apply in terms of human rights to the people who are involved.

The Greens do not support this race and rushing. It is an obscene rushing through the parliament of a political fix which will have enormous ramifications for the lives of many thousands of people. I do not think that that is an appropriate way for a parliament to behave—certainly not, if this parliament races this through without the answers to questions even as straightforward as those my colleague asked: does this mean indefinite detention for 10 years? What does it mean? What does it mean for children? We know that the minister is repudiating his responsibilities as guardian for unaccompanied children. What does that mean for orphaned children coming here as refugees? Where are they going to go? Where are they going to be locked up? For how long? What does this advantage/disadvantage actually mean? And why is it not cruel to do that?

We do not support this. The answers are not on the table. The Houston panel, in their briefing to the Greens, indicated that there would be substantial opportunities for disallowance and they indicated that there would be substantial opportunities for framing the conditions in those determinations, and yet clearly none of that is on the table. I do not think that even the Houston panel will be happy with the way that the government is just racing this through and saying, 'Let's just do it. Let's just get people to Nauru by the end of the week. Let's get them to Manus Island. Let's send people in tents'—for goodness sake—'Let's dispatch the defence forces.' We have heard people talking today about the cuts to defence and yet it seems we have millions to spend to send the defence forces and tents to Nauru and to Manus Island. Those facilities are very battered and not in good condition, yet it seems that we do not care. We can just send people there in tents. The defence forces are saying, 'We don't have the capability to act as police'—if you like—'and guard these refugees.' As if these people have not been punished enough already.

So we do not support an obscene rushing of this legislation through the parliament. I think the parliament will live to regret it. We will find in months hence bits and pieces of amendments coming back to try to fix up mistakes. But it will be at the expense of people's lives, if not their quality of life. What we are also going to find is that it is going to land us with huge costs in compensation in the longer term as people are treated very badly in this chaotic rush just to send them out of sight and out of mind into indefinite detention. That is a very bad way for a parliament to proceed. That is why we do not support this obscene suspension and this obscene changing of the hours to force through a piece of legislation. I do not believe the Manager of Government Business in the Senate can actually give me an answer to the question about whether people will be detained 'indefinitely' or for 10 years. Nor will she be able to tomorrow, and yet we are going to be in a situation where we will have both the coalition and Labor passing legislation without being able to answer basic questions about what this actually means for people's lives.

I would also note that in normal arrangements when parties talk about how they might change the hours there is negotiation across all parties. I note with interest that this did not happen on this occasion. I think that is also symptomatic of a rather dirty deal that has been stitched up to race this through the parliament to the detriment of people's lives. That is why we are opposing it.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wonder where the Australian Greens were during the carbon tax debate? I think I can recall them supporting time management motions. I think I can recall them supporting gag motions.

I point out that despite the Greens' protestations this motion actually does neither of those things. What this motion does is provide for additional time, soon, for the consideration of this legislation. The opposition is prepared to support this motion to give up its own private senators' business time tomorrow morning, the opposition is prepared to give up its own general business time tomorrow afternoon and the opposition is prepared to give up consideration of government documents. That is not seeking to curtail debate. What that is doing is seeking to facilitate debate. If you look at the ordinary business hours for tomorrow, there will be something of the order of seven hours for consideration. There is no guillotine at the end of the day. The debate will go as long as the debate goes. So I think that the sorts of arguments that the Greens are putting up would actually have been better made on some of the motions that they and the government together supported in relation to curtailing debate on the carbon tax.

As I have indicated, we are supporting this motion. We think that these bills should be debated sooner rather than later because four years ago the effective border protection regime of the Howard government was dismantled by the Australian Labor Party. We predicted at that time that nothing good would come of it and that it would only provide a product for people smugglers to sell, and they have done that.

The government have belatedly seen the error of their ways, so we do not want to unnecessarily delay or curtail debate on this legislation. We think it should be debated quickly. Let the debate go where it may, but we are very keen to see this legislation passed this week because this legislation directly affects people's lives. We do not want to see people put in harm's way for any longer than necessary, so we will be supporting this motion to facilitate debate and to provide the opportunity for debate. But, as I say, we will not ourselves be seeking to unnecessarily delay this legislation. Colleagues will have contributions to make, but we do want to see this legislation passed this week.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in moving the motion, this is a procedural motion that seeks, as Senator Fifield has highlighted, to allow for debate quickly. It does not seek to curtail debate and, as Senator Evans indicated in question time, detailed opportunity will be provided for Senator Milne and other members of the Greens to ask the types of questions that were raised in question time today. Senator Evans did not seek to avoid questions but rather highlighted the fact that we would be seeking to move quickly to a detailed discussion of the bill, hopefully later today and, indeed, throughout the course of tomorrow. I should highlight again that we are dealing with a procedural motion, not seeking to debate the substance of the matter. Senator Milne will have that opportunity and, indeed, the opportunity also to deal with matters of what remains disallowable with respect to this bill when the bill is before us.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.