Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Abetz, I move:

That the Migration Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 6), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 237 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed. [F2012L02021]

This is a motion for the disallowance of Migration Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 6) as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2012 No. 237 and made under the Migration Act 1958. The regulation was tabled on 29 October 2012. The government claims that the purpose of the regulation is as follows: to amend the Migration Regulations 1994 to prescribe a new class of persons as eligible noncitizens under paragraph 72(1)(b) of the Migration Act. That class of persons is a noncitizen who, when he or she last entered Australia, was not immigration cleared and after entering Australia was granted a bridging E (class WE) visa under section 195 of the act. As eligible noncitizens, persons in this class of persons are able to make valid applications for bridging visas in Australia subject to any other provisions in the act or the principal regulations.

The regulation will allow irregular maritime arrivals who have already a bridging visa granted by the minister under section 195A of the Migration Act to make a further application for a bridging visa when that initial bridging visa expires and have that visa granted where they have been unable to do so in the past. This regulation is no doubt being introduced by the government because of its failed border protection policies and because these failed policies have seen the number of IMAs arriving in Australia in this financial year increase to three times the rate of arrivals in the previous financial year, and as a result Australia's immigration detention network can no longer cope.

As confirmation of that, I refer to an article on the Sydney Morning Herald website entitled 'Labor's Pacific Solution overwhelmed', which was published about 40 minutes ago. The first paragraph of that article says:

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has effectively conceded that Labor’s Pacific Solution Mark II has been overwhelmed, announcing that asylum seekers are arriving in such numbers that they will be allowed to live in the Australian community.

The government has admitted to the Australian people and to this parliament that the total number of IMAs in immigration detention centres and APODs is 7,670. There are 1,688 under residence determination, and more than 6,100 IMAs have been released on bridging visas since November 2011. The government therefore wants this regulation passed so that it can release the IMAs, as Minister Bowen has stated today—and only very recently—into the community as a matter of urgency so that the government can make way for the new IMAs that are arriving at an unprecedented rate.

If one distils the effect and the impact of this regulation, it is clear that it is in fact a declaration of abject failure and incompetence by the minister and by the Gillard Labor government. This regulation is a declaration by the minister and the government that Labor's border protection policies have comprehensively failed and that the people smugglers have won their right to decide who will be able to enter Australia and under what terms they will be able to do so. This regulation enables the people smugglers to continue to ply their criminal trade. They know that the more people they send to Australia, and the more pressure they put on a Labor government, the more likely it is that the government will make changes to the immigration regulations to accommodate the people smugglers' vile trade.

In fact, the scope of this regulation is so broad, representing such a decisive win for the people smugglers, that I expect that they will be photocopying this regulation and using it as a marketing ploy to show people that under Labor they actually determine who comes and the manner in which they come to Australia. People smugglers will probably laminate copies of this regulation and hand it out to IMAs, telling them that it shows that the minute they get to Christmas Island they are basically guaranteed a free passage to Australia, because that is what this regulation actually does. It has the effect of creating yet another avenue of judicial review for IMAs which they previously, prior to this regulation, did not have. One has to remember that judicial review is a great cost to the Australian taxpayer. It is the Australian taxpayer who pays for judicial review.

The regulation is also dangerous in that it clearly sends a signal to people smugglers that under the current Labor government, despite the spurious threat of offshore processing, once an IMA has been delivered to Australia they are effectively here for good. It represents a dramatic extension to the minister's announcement in November 2011 that he would allow IMAs to be released into the community on bridging visas prior to their applications being finalised and after initial checks had been completed. That November 2011 policy reversal was clearly designed to relieve pressure on the detention network, which had been straining under the increasing arrivals. The coalition was very critical of the announcement at the time, and the shadow minister for immigration, Scott Morrison, said:

Failed asylum seekers who arrive by boat will now be able to stay in Australia for years to pursue their claims through the Refugee Review Tribunal and endlessly in the courts, with broader grounds of appeal, while living and working in the community.

… A Government who claims to want to provide a deterrent on boat arrivals would never do this.

Senators will also be aware that sovereign governments have the right to determine who comes to their country and the manner and circumstances in which they do so. Most countries have migration acts which set out the terms and conditions of entry to ensure that the country's sovereign right is not in any way compromised.

In Australia the Migration Act 1958 is the statutory instrument that sets out the terms and conditions on which a person is allowed to enter Australia. Section 195A of the Migration Act provides the minister personal authority to grant a detainee a visa, whether or not on application, subject to the minister making his personal decision after considering the specific circumstances of the detained person. Section 195A of the Migration Act is couched in terms that, as set out in subsection (2), specifically require the minister to personally consider the facts before he or she makes a personal decision on the granting of a section 195A visa. The requirement of the personal decision was written into the Migration Act because the parliament in its wisdom determined that it was critical that a person who is directly accountable to the parliament exercises Australia's sovereign right to determine who will enter this country. Parliament was clear in its intent to ensure that such a decision was made by a minister because that minister could potentially be challenged on the floor of the parliament to explain his or her decision to the parliament.

The parliament also included a requirement, in section 195A(6), that the minister table his or her reasons for such a grant before each house of the parliament. This requirement for the minister to table their reasons for the exercise of their personal power was another safeguard that the parliament saw as critical to the process under the grant of a visa under section 195A of the Migration Act. Given the provisions of section 195A, the parliament further determined that the exercise of the minister's personal decision-making power was to be beyond the power of the courts to intervene in and that such decisions would be non-compellable and non-reviewable.

Senators should be aware that the regulations we are currently debating provide for the express requirements in section 195A to make the minister personally accountable for his actions to the parliament to be overridden and set aside and for the personal power of the minister to be delegated to a public servant. Further, there is no requirement to table any reasons for the public servant's decision in the parliament.

I quote from attachment B, which forms part of the explanatory memorandum to the relevant regulation:

This change will enable a delegate of the Minister in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to decide subsequent visa applications for this cohort without requiring the Minister to consider using his personal power under section 195A. If a delegate of the Minister were to decide to grant a visa, the Minister would not be required to cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a statement under section 195A setting out the reasons for granting the visa for each subsequent grant.

The coalition says this to Minister Bowen: by the Migration Act, you, as the relevant minister, are required to lawfully exercise the powers that the parliament has conferred upon you in the manner set out in the appropriate statute. You are not at liberty, nor do you possess the power, to delegate your personal statutory obligations to others. If you do not want to exercise the powers the parliament has given you then, quite frankly, you should hand in your resignation. A minister should not abrogate a personal duty for which he is personally accountable to the parliament in this way.

The minister needs to understand that, unless the parliament agrees that the minister should be able to abrogate his personal duties to the parliament, such a regulation is incompetent. The change represents a dramatic reversal of the accountability of the minister to the parliament, as is currently required by section 195A, and effectively extinguishes by regulation the statutory obligations of the minister when using his personal decision-making power, as set out in section 195A. In fact, I would be keen to hear the minister's explanation. Perhaps Minister Ludwig, if he chooses to address this motion, can provide the explanation to us of why the minister sought to gazette a regulation in an attempt to relieve the minister of various statutory obligations, rather than to come into the parliament and amend the principal act.

The effect of this regulation, if it is supported, is to enable visas to be granted, without the need for an application, at the discretion of public servants who will not be accountable to the parliament. This is directly in opposition to what is currently required by the Migration Act. I say 'not accountable to the parliament' because any issue affecting the discretionary exercise of this power by a public servant will be reviewable by the courts; it will not be an issue for the parliament. That is completely at odds with the minister's current responsibilities under section 195A of the Migration Act. This regulation effectively outsources to public servants the statutory obligations of ministerial decision making in the vital area of the discretionary grant of visas to IMAs and, quite frankly, is a gross abrogation of ministerial responsibility.

The coalition is appalled that the government and the Greens would seek to sell out the parliament for crass political purposes. It is also extremely concerning to the coalition that, as stated in the explanatory memorandum, no consultation outside the Department of Immigration and Citizenship was undertaken in the preparation of the measure in this regulation because it was required urgently. Surely the parliament is entitled to a comprehensive explanation of why there is an urgent need for a regulation that (a) seeks to override the express words of the Migration Act 1958 and purports to divest the minister of his express statutory obligations; (b) abrogates the personal decision-making power of the minister to public servants, who were not elected by the people, merely appointed by the government of the day; and (c) establishes a further avenue of appeal through judicial review of the decisions of public servants for people who arrive here unlawfully by boat.

This regulation also raises a number of very important issues that have not been addressed by the government—again, perhaps Minister Ludwig would be kind enough to address these issues if he chooses to address the chamber—but that could have very serious consequences in this important portfolio area. These issues include: what is the effect of this regulation on those persons who are subject to the provisions of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012, remembering that that amendment provided the minister with the discretion to determine that a person does not have to be taken to a regional processing country? Others issues it raises include an explanation of what criteria or conditions will prevent the bridging visa being granted by the public servant and an explanation of what criteria or conditions must be considered by the public servant prior to the granting of a bridging visa. Can the public servant actually refuse the grant of a bridging visa and, if so, why is the regulation expressed in terms of 'apply for and be given'? That is the current wording of that regulation: apply for and be given. What is the process undertaken prior to the granting of a bridging visa, or is this process merely an automatic rubber-stamp by a public servant once an application for a bridging visa is made? That therefore confirms exactly what the Sydney Morning Herald is currently saying in its article online, which is basically that asylum seekers are effectively here for good and allowed to live in the Australian community. Further, is the public servant able to grant a bridging visa to any person who arrived in Australia's excised offshore territory on or after 13 August 2012 and, if so, who?

I have to say that, for once, the press in their analysis have actually got it right. Minister Bowen, in making his further announcement today, has conceded that the detention network in Australia is now basically overwhelmed. This regulation shows that the government is desperate to keep as many people as possible out of detention as the cost pressures on the detention network escalate unsustainably. Perhaps this is the sole reason for the government bringing in this measure, because it will allow every IMA who has a BVE from the minister to apply for a bridging visa after that initial visa expires and have it granted by a public servant without reference back to the minister. A further visa will be granted automatically, subject to other provisions in the acts and regulations. However, every refusal of an application will open the door for endless appeals through the tribunals and eventually the courts, and it must be remembered that this will all be paid for by the Australian taxpayer.

The regulation effectively allows, and in most cases will likely force, the government and the minister to keep IMAs on bridging visas indefinitely. This is nothing more and nothing less than bad public policy, and it is clearly not in the national interest when it is completely at odds with the express provisions of section 195A of the Migration Act, which make this a personal statutory responsibility of the minister—a responsibility about which, by this regulation, the minister is throwing his hands up and saying to the Australian people, 'I cannot cope anymore, and because I cannot cope I am delegating my decision-making power under section 195A to public servants who are not accountable to the parliament.'

Basically, by this regulation the government is saying to the people smugglers and the people of Australia that mandatory detention is effectively over under the Gillard Labor government. By a stroke of the pen and with the introduction of this regulation, the government has removed any incentive at all for an IMA to return home. This is yet another step by the Labor government that will damage the integrity of our migration program. It is not in the interests of good governance and the proper exercise of ministerial responsibility. In the interests of good governance and in the interests of ministerial responsibility, this regulation should be disallowed.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can just inject some facts into this debate, I know that Senator Cash has made a range of unsubstantiated statements and claims about the regulation. I did listen intently to it. I was wondering at one point whether we were talking about the same regulation. I came to the conclusion that we were not. Be that as it may, can I say that much of the hyperbole that Senator Cash went to about what the regulation will or will not do is erroneous; I leave it at that. I can try to explain what the regulation does do and let people who listen to this make up their own minds about it.

What the regulation does is to reduce an unnecessary logistical and administrative burden on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship by allowing the department to manage irregular maritime arrivals in line with normal status resolution procedures—nothing more and nothing less. Previously the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship would use his personal non-compellable power under section 195A of the Migration Act to grant a bridging visa to an IMA for a specified time to release them from immigration detention while their claims for protection were being considered. However, as this power is available only if a person is in immigration detention as an unlawful noncitizen, when a person's bridging visa ceases—if you follow me to that point—what happens is that they have to be detained. They have to be gone after, got and put back in detention before they can be granted a new bridging visa. So the minister, under 195A, releases them for a specified time whilst their claims for protection are being considered—so they have already gone through their health, identity and security checks—and they are simply at one point of many on a positive pathway. But in this instance, when the time is finalised, they have to be detained and the minister, in this instance, has to reissue a new bridging visa.

These regulations enable the department to grant subsequent bridging visas to people for whom the minister has already personally granted a bridging visa prior to the expiry of their original visa, meaning that they do not have to be unnecessarily redetained and reducing the burden on both the department and the individual. This also enables the department to more effectively manage people within normal status resolution procedures, allowing appropriate conditions to be applied to bridging visas to encourage voluntary removal from Australia where a person has been found not to be a refugee.

Following on from the regulation itself, if it is disallowed then you will not have all of the issues that Senator Cash raised occurring, because they are fanciful. What you will have is that hundreds of people currently on bridging visas will need to be redetained in order to have their bridging visas renewed, at a significant inconvenience for the client. And for what purpose? Many of these people are already on a positive pathway, and there is an administrative burden in redetaining them when they have already had a health check and a security check, their application is currently being assessed and the minister has made the initial decision to put them on a bridging visa for a specified time. So all of that has already been undertaken. In many cases, redetaining can take several hours and require people who have found employment to take the day off work, and any children to take the day off school, simply to have their visa renewed. You wonder why Senator Cash would want to intervene in such a forceful manner, stop people from continuing their employment and continuing to manage their family and their children, and make them go through this hoop again—other than that perhaps she might enjoy having them go through an administrative hoop twice. I do not think that is true.

On that basis I think that what has happened here—and it sometimes does happen—is that you read a conspiracy theory into a regulation and after a while it becomes truer the more times you read it. Can I again simply dispel that. Many of the allegations made (1) are completely unfathomable to me, (2) are wrong and (3) are, I think, not straw man reasoning either. I do not think that Senator Cash was actually trying to build a case that was wrong and then cut it down.

I think that where she has gone in this was just a mistake.

This regulation relates to the pre 13 August group. It is a change in the administrative arrangements only, and that is all. Let me say that again so that no-one misses this point: this regulation relates to the pre 13 August group. It is a change in the administrative arrangements only, nothing else. It is a very short, very sharp statement. It is a way of ensuring for these groups of people that the administrative burden, which I went through very carefully, is reduced. It actually means that the department, the person who is subject to the bridging visa and the general public will not be inconvenienced by this. It is a very easy regulation to read and understand. Surprisingly, all of what I have just said is said in the explanation issued by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen.

I am at a loss, quite frankly, to understand where Senator Cash read all her lines from. I think I have addressed much of what she asked me to address in the short, simple statements that I have had an opportunity to add today to this debate, because without the regulations people must be redetained every time their bridging visa expires. They must be physically redetained for the minister to renew their bridging. Why would you put people through this if you could, through regulation, change it? Fundamentally nothing else changes. Just so that we do not miss the point, 195A, the substantive provision under the act, does not change. There is no change to that. The form does not change; the criteria do not change; the grounds do not change; the process does not change, save for this one piece: the minister after initially issuing the first bridging visa can delegate to the department to do the remainder while the person is in the process. That is quite a simple thing. It is quite an easy thing to grasp. I fail to understand why the opposition have not grasped that, but I do not hold out much hope that they will or even that with my explanation they will acknowledge what 195A and these regulations say.

Finally, there is no appeal. There are no changes to the appeal mechanism, so all of the things that I listened very carefully to Senator Cash saying are wrong. Nonetheless, I am sure she believes them. With those short words, I commend that we should not have this regulation disallowed. It is a sensible change. I would ask those in the chamber who perhaps are a little more rational on this issue to agree that—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your friends the Greens are definitely more rational!

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I knew I would get you eventually. I would ask that those people agree that this should not be disallowed.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to hear the minister be very clear about the fact that this change to the bridging visa regulations is not going to impact on those people who have arrived since 13 August, in relation to the announcement that the immigration minister made today saying that this government is about to embark on a whole new regime of temporary protection visas. The idea of allowing individuals to have their claims assessed while living in the community if they are not a risk to the community saves the taxpayer ultimately hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. We know that immigration detention is an expensive operation. Keeping people in detention is costly to the taxpayer and costly to the mental health of individuals and, of course, does nothing to deter people from arriving in Australia seeking our protection. All you need to do is look at the impact over the last few months to see that these types of policies do not stop people running for their lives and seeking protection.

I am concerned, however, that the government is embarking on a new regime to keep those people who have been assessed as genuine refugees on bridging visas. That is what the minister has announced today. We are hearing from Minister Ludwig in the chamber right now that that is not in relation to this regulation and that this regulation is all but administrative. I wonder whether there could be an indication from the government as to whether there is going to be a new regulation for those people who have arrived post 13 August and who will be subject now to the minister's new announcement in relation to not being given a permanent protection visa because of the government's no advantage policy. If I could have an answer on that, then I think I would be able to indicate the Greens' position on this disallowance motion. Without that, it makes it a little bit difficult.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): The minister says that the coalition is wrong in its summation of the explanation. This is a minister who, quite frankly, was part of a government that said that there would be no carbon tax under it, so I personally would put weight on the fact that the coalition is actually right in relation to its summation of the legislation because this government has been proven to have lied to the Australian people time and time again. The minister also says, by way of his explanation for this regulation, that this is a way of allowing the department to now manage the situation. I say this to the minister: perhaps if you had not rolled back the Howard government's strong border protection policies, we would not be in the position that we are in today in having to debate a regulation that is effectively going to get rid of mandatory detention in Australia. Perhaps if you had not rolled back the Howard government's strong border protection policies, the other day we would not have had to appropriate yet a further $1.67 billion of Australian taxpayer money for the infrastructure on Nauru and Manus Island. Perhaps if you had not rolled back the former Howard government's strong border protection policies, there would be an additional amount of over $6 billion for this government to put towards issues like health services, more hospitals and schools, which the Australian taxpayer actually needs.

But instead, because of the government's gross incompetence when it comes to managing Australia's borders, we have now seen in excess of 30,000 people come to Australia by boat, and this regulation merely gives the people smugglers another product to sell. It allows the people smugglers to say to irregular maritime arrivals who will be here, 'Once you have a bridging visa and you have been let out into the community, guess what: you are not going back into detention'. That is exactly what the minister has just confirmed. He has actually confirmed that the whole reason why the government is bringing in this regulation is: it does not want to have to send people back into detention.

I know why the government does not want to have to send people back into detention. It is because there are no beds at all in detention. Christmas Island is now at capacity. On Christmas Island people are now back in tents, and we all know what happened the last time that people were in tents on Christmas Island as that script has already been written for the Australian people. There were mass riots on Christmas Island. Untold damage was done to Australian taxpayer property on Christmas Island. Because of the sheer quantities of people that were coming here by boat the detention centre could not cope. So when the minister stands up and says that one of the reasons for this regulation is to allow the department to better manage the bridging visa process, I have to say that it is one of the poorest excuses that I have ever come across in my life. In fact, it is an absolute cop-out given the real reason that this regulation has been brought before the Senate. The government has completely, totally and utterly failed when it comes to managing our borders, and that is the reason why the minister, instead of revisiting a decision and then personally making it himself—as section 195A of the Migration Act states the minister should do—he has thrown his hands up in the air and he has said, 'It is all too much for me.'

The reason it is all too much for the minister is the sheer quantity of numbers. There is no other reason at all. If you had only a trickle of boats coming to Australia, the minister, quite frankly, could personally exercise his discretion under section 195A of the act. But when you have the sheer quantity of people coming to Australia and you have no further beds in detention, you only have to look at the minister's announcement today. In Tasmania they opened Pontville, they closed Pontville and—guess what—they have re-opened Pontville today because there are just no beds in the detention network so they have now had to re-open a detention centre that they had closed.

When you have a detention centre system that is now crumbling under political incompetence, you make the decision that the minister has made. When someone comes here, you get him in and out of Christmas Island as fast as you can because the longer they are there the more likely it is that another boatload of people are going to arrive and you are not going to have anywhere to put them. So you get them into Christmas Island and then you get them on to the Australian mainland as fast as possible. You might select one in 500-odd—I do not know the number—who might go to Nauru or who might now go to Manus Island, but the majority—in fact, almost all—of the people who are arriving on Christmas Island are then coming straight to the Australian mainland.

We all know what happens when they come to the Australian mainland. They get released into the community, they are able to live, they are able to work and they are effectively Australian residents indefinitely. That is because by this regulation the minister is saying, 'I don't need to deal with these people anymore. I've had enough of them. There are too many of them. I can no longer cope because our detention network is at capacity'—and the minister is right about the detention network because goodness knows where they would actually put them. That is a nightmare for the government. Could you imagine if that were to actually occur? He has delegated, he has relegated and he has abrogated—you name it and the minister has done it—his duty to unelected public servants. Section 195A of the Migration Act is very clear. This is a personal power of the minister. The parliament has expressly given the minister this personal statutory authority and regardless of what Minister Ludwig says on his analysis of the regulation you need to remember that Minister Ludwig is part of a government that said there would be no carbon tax at all 'under our government' and, lo and behold, Australians have not only a carbon tax but a carbon tax under which the price on carbon is going to be going up and up and up despite what is going on in Europe and despite the fact that a recent poll has shown that 38 per cent of Australians now believe that they are worse off because of Labor's carbon tax.

Why would you believe a minister who has the audacity to be part of a government whose leader said to the people prior to the Australian election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and who then comes in here and tries to fudge his way through the reasons for this regulation?

It is very simple. The Labor government thought they were smarter than the Howard government. They thought: 'The Howard government stopped the boats. They may have stopped them but we can do one better than that.' We all remember what happened in August 2008. Mr Rudd said: 'I'll show that Mr Howard. Not only did he give the people a $22 billion surplus; he stopped the boats. But I can do better than that.' And I have to say that they have, but not in a good way: net debt is $150 billion or $157 billion today, and for gross debt you can add another billion dollars onto that; lift the debt ceiling three times; and wind back the proven border protection policies of the Howard government. Fast forward four years, and guess what? That is the reason we are standing here today: not because the government has suddenly worked out what to do with immigration policy in this country but because the government has shown that it is completely incompetent when it comes to managing Australia's borders. They are desperate.

They are so desperate that a minister—quite frankly, when you become a minister, you are actually normally quite proud that you have been given by the parliament certain responsibilities, statutory authority, under acts of parliament. Most ministers like to exercise the personal responsibilities that the parliament has given to them as ministers. But not this minister. I have to say that you almost have to feel sorry for Minister Bowen because, if there were any portfolio that you would not want in government, this is it. He cannot give this portfolio away, for very good reason.

That is why we are here today: because the Labor government have failed yet again to secure our borders and, as a result, over 30,000 people have come to Australia by boat. As I said, the minister has today effectively conceded that the immigration detention network is not just at breaking point but actually broken. Let us be real about this. It is no longer at breaking point. The immigration detention network in Australia has effectively crumbled under the weight of Labor government incompetence. There is no room at Christmas Island. People are in tents. There is literally a simmering pot of tension on Christmas Island. As a result of that, here we are, talking about this regulation. As I said, the minister has thrown up his hands and said, 'It's all too much for me.' He has abrogated the responsibility given to him, regardless of what Minister Ludwig says. Under section 195A of the Migration Act he has delegated his personal statutory responsibility to a public servant. That public servant is not accountable to the parliament, as the minister is. In November 2011, the minister announced that they would be allowing detainees into the community, and Scott Morrison said:

Failed asylum seekers who arrive by boat will now be able to stay in Australia for years to pursue their claims through the Refugee Review Tribunal and endlessly in the courts, with broader grounds of appeal, while living and working in the community.

A Government who claims to want to provide a deterrent on boat arrivals would never do this.

Unfortunately, we are not dealing with a government that wants to do this. As such, the coalition does not believe that this regulation is in the national interest. It does not believe that this regulation is in the interests of good ministerial responsibility, and we urge the Senate to disallow this regulation.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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