Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the motion circulated in the chamber, with respect to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be agreed to without amendment or debate.

Those who were watching the House of Representatives yesterday will be aware of the importance of this matter. It is critical that we address this issue first-up today and that we address the very critical issues. I understand that the motion is being circulated, but it seems that it hasn't reached you yet, Mr President.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield, on a point of order?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins said that a motion had been circulated. It doesn't seem to be at this table.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just made the unofficial point as well. I don't have a copy either.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's misleading the chamber.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not misleading the chamber. In anticipating the urgency and gravity of the nature of this, I'm more than happy to read the motion so that senators can have clear in their minds what we're addressing or seeking a suspension for. The motion reads:

That:

(a) the message from the House of Representatives relating to the Senate amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be reported immediately,

(b) consideration of the message shall have precedence over all other business, including senators' statements and question time, until determined,

(c) immediately after the message is reported, the following motion in respect of the message shall be proposed from the Chair and considered without amendment:

  That the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendments to the bill.

(d) a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 5 minutes and, if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the motion is proposed, the question on the motion shall then be put, and

(e)—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're making it up as you go.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed we are, Senator Bernardi. Unfortunately, IT doesn't function effectively. I have (e) here.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Collins; I do have to hear the point of order from Senator Fifield.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not only are we at the disadvantage of not having a copy of the motion, but Senator Collins herself doesn't have a complete copy of her own motion. Item (e) is on someone's iPhone. It's not before Senator Collins or in the chamber.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order on circulation, I have been advised by the Clerk that, as long as the motion is circulated by the conclusion of this debate to allow senators to read it prior to the vote, that would mean it is compliant. I will encourage circulation of the motion, not least of all to me in the chair, to show courtesy to all senators.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on a point of order, Mr President: Senator Collins has admitted that she's making this up as she goes. How can they then circulate this motion, when she is just making it up on the run?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins was reading a motion, and it will be circulated prior to the conclusion of the debate, and as soon as possible, for the courtesy of senators, myself included.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unfortunate that senators on the other side would seek to make light of an issue as important as this, but I will get to (e) now, which unfortunately, I do admit, was caught behind other papers in front of me, and then we resorted to technology to attempt to resolve that. But let me get to (e).

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr President: this really demonstrates the same level of care, concern and attention to detail which has been manifested in relation to this particular bill and those opposite when it comes to border security.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield, there is an opportunity for this motion to be debated. That's not a point of order.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate actually wanted to hear (e). I'll get to (e) now:

(e) at the conclusion of consideration of the message, government business order of the day No.4 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 shall be called on and have precedence over all government business until determined.

That is the motion that I have moved the suspension with respect to. We've moved this motion this morning because the opposition believes that, given the events in the House of Representatives yesterday, the issue should be given precedence over all other business until it is resolved. The volatility in this place just highlights that further. The House of Representatives yesterday made amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 that was considered in the Senate on the final sitting day of 2018. These amendments mean that the government must now listen to advice of doctors about whether sick refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island should be evacuated to Australia for medical care.

Labor worked with the crossbench members of the other place to secure important amendments to strengthen this bill. Labor has been doing the same thing in the Senate and has been working closely with senators across the crossbench to make sure these amendments are supported in both houses of parliament. The passing of these amendments in the House yesterday afternoon marked the first time a government has lost a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives in 90 years. This is a significant event and one that surely means the issue deserves priority consideration this morning in the Senate.

The hysterical response from the Liberal government to the events of the House of Representatives just shows how desperate they are. We have a dangerous and volatile Prime Minister. The attempts of the government today to prevent this issue from being dealt with as a matter of priority show they are just scared of losing another vote. They are a government that is divided. They are a government in chaos. They are a government—put simply—out of control. The government cannot be surprised that this matter would be atop our priority list in the Senate today. The government could have been the ones to list this issue the first time this morning, but instead we have business as usual—the Labor Party managing the program from opposition, something we have seen consistently now for some time. I urge senators to support this suspension. Let this chamber have the debate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this motion. What this motion by the Labor Party shows to the Australian people is just how cocky, how reckless, how irresponsible and how weak Bill Shorten is as leader of the Labor Party. Bill Shorten is demonstrating to all Australians that he does not have the strength of character or the good judgement required to be Prime Minister of Australia. In pursuit of a short-term tactical political advantage, he has decided to compromise our national security and to compromise our border protection arrangements.

What Labor is doing here today is trying to ram legislation through the Senate which will weaken our border protection arrangements. Let's just remind ourselves what the Labor Party tried to do in the Senate—very incompetently, I might add—back in December. Back in December, the Labor Party tried to ram legislation through the Senate which Bill Shorten yesterday had to admit would have denied the opportunity for the government to turn away criminals from Australia and would have put the pull factor back at the heart of our border protection arrangements, which of course is the product that the people smugglers want to sell.

Why did Bill Shorten move amendments yesterday? Because, having failed to ask for security advice from our national security agencies and with a failed gag motion in the Senate in December last year, he convinced his Labor senators in this chamber to support legislation which, he had to admit in the end, would have put our border security arrangements at serious, serious risk. Let me just say that the ALP amendments that were passed by Labor, the Greens and the crossbench in the House of Representatives yesterday still leave Australia exposed.

Here are some of the kinds of people the minister would be forced to bring to Australia on the say so of doctors under the Labor amendments: people charged with bad conduct but not convicted of offences under foreign laws or convicted but sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. Plenty of countries hand down lenient sentences for things like beating your wife or paedophilia, if they hand down any sentence at all. It is very hard to convict people of things like rape in some countries because women's testimony is worth much less than that of men. A person charged but not sentenced for, say, murder or paedophilia on Nauru will not be caught by the exemption. Australian security agencies may be well aware of a person engaging in paedophilia on Nauru but the person need not have been charged or sentenced.

The upshot is that, as a result of Bill Shorten's bill—and it will be on his head—rapists, murderers and paedophiles will still get a free pass into this country. Bill Shorten should be ashamed of himself. It includes people involved in criminal organisations. A person may be a member of a criminal drug-dealing gang, for example. It includes people reasonably suspected of people smuggling. These are all people that would be forced onto Australia courtesy of legislation that Labor is seeking to ram through the Senate. It includes people whose general past conduct shows they are not of good character. For example, it includes people who consort with criminals, people whose bad conduct is not criminalised in the relevant home jurisdiction, people who have been convicted of a lot of low-level offences, people who have been fighting guards in Nauru or Manus, people who have touched up nurses, people who have threatened violence and people who have bragged about going into crime and drug dealing when they get to Australia.

These are the people that the Labor Party, together with the Greens, wants to bring into Australia. It includes people who have incited racial discord on Nauru or Manus and people who pose a risk of doing the following in Australia: engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia; or vilify a segment of the Australian community; or incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community; or represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, that community or segment, or in any other way.

So the Australian people can now see the cockiness of Bill Shorten; they can see his arrogance, as well as his recklessness and his absolute weakness in standing up for our national interests. Bill Shorten has not learned from the failures of the Rudd Labor government. Kevin Rudd thought that he could be tough and soft at the same time. Of course, the disastrous results were there for all to see: 1,200 deaths at sea. Labor are at it again. This time they don't even want to wait for an election.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, a point of order?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, you haven't dealt with the motion allowing committees to meet. I just walked outside and it does seem that there are committees meeting. Is there—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice—having briefly discussed this with the Clerk, because the motion was moved prior to us being able to deal with these matters this morning—is that the convention in the Senate is that, as long as permission is granted for the committees to meet sometime today, that is valid.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a reasonable point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we don't get to that today, which, according to Senator Collins's program, we won't, then all the meetings that are happening are invalid?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, before you address this issue, can I just indicate, so that it's clear for Senator Macdonald, that the opposition will provide leave for any important matters such as that that you highlight.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not what your motion said.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, that's an important point of order. My advice is: as long as it is granted today. I haven't yet sought advice on the occasion that we did not get to it by 7.20 pm, when the Senate adjourns. However, I understand that leave will be granted to deal with it at some point today, which will cover the provision you raise. So if that addresses that particular—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not what the motion—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I can do is take what Senator Collins has said, in that leave will be granted. Of course, any senator can object to that. We will return to this particular debate.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this suspension, because today is such an important day for the many millions of Australians who are fighting for a return to a more decent, a more compassionate, a more caring Australia, and we stand with them!

Let me make this point: indefinite detention of innocent people in offshore prisons is wrong. It is wrong. Depriving innocent people of their liberty and depriving them of hope is wrong. Denying medical treatment to innocent people in our care is wrong! The fact that we're even debating whether we should be denying innocent people access to medical care shows you how far down this dark path we have come.

This isn't a question of politics. This isn't a question of law. This is a question of basic human decency. This goes to the essence of how we treat our fellow human beings—of who we are as a nation. Right now we are engaged in the politics of fear and division. This is a taste of what is to come in this election campaign, where we see a government with nothing other than fear and division—a government with no plan to tackle climate change, no energy policy, no plan to increase wages, no plan to tackle the housing crisis—turn to the old trusted toolbox where fear and division is the pathway to winning an election. That's what this is about. That's what this government seeks to do. I fear for what the next few months have in store for the Australian community—turning people against each other, when we should be appealing to people's better nature, when we should be giving people an Australia they can believe in, an Australia that is compassionate and decent towards innocent human beings.

For too long—for months now—we have been debating in this parliament whether the people on Manus Island and Nauru can get access to the medical care that they need. The government's proposition is this: that we should harm innocent people—that we should deny them a fundamental right, which we've accepted not just here in Australia but right around the world, that anybody who is sick should get access to decent medical care. This is a basic human right. Yet we have a government saying: 'We are going to deny people this human right in an effort to send a message to someone else; we will harm the innocent to send a message to someone else.' That is a principle we don't accept in any other part of our justice system.

What we saw at the end of last year was some decency finally being injected in this debate. We saw the medical community, the AMA, the medical colleges, refugee advocates, human rights lawyers and, indeed, brave members of the crossbench joining with the Greens and then the Labor Party, to finally stand up and say: 'No more! We are not going to accept the harm that is being inflicted on innocent people.' And this basic, simple principle that we have accepted up until this point, which is that sick people get access to medical care, should be something we stand up for.

That this is even a matter of debate shows you how far we have come. I fear that this bill still is not certain to pass. We will find that out in the coming moments. But the fact that this bill is now before the Senate again is in part because we saw the Labor Party decide to make changes to a bill they supported several months ago. That's why this bill has now returned to the Senate. We played a critical role in ensuring that this bill remained integral in terms of ensuring that people get access to medical care, and we now are fully supportive of what's being put before the Senate, but the reality is this: never before have Australians seen why they need to have the Greens in the Senate—indeed, more independent voices in our parliament. It is because, when pressure comes to bear on the major parties, they listen to those people with the deepest pockets and with the biggest megaphones, rather than standing up for decency. And that's what this bill is about. It's about ensuring fundamental decency is once again returned to this policy that has inflicted so much harm on so many people.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point I need to make is that it has always been the convention in this place that the government of the day has the opportunity to lay out the program for legislation during government business time. I can well remember Senator Collins fiercely defending that proposition when she was on this side of the chamber. It is the convention in this place that the government of the day lay out the legislative program in this place, so we cannot support the suspension motion to alter that convention.

But what we also saw was an absolute shambles on the part of those opposite when it came to seeking to move the suspension motion. That reflects what has been a real lack of care and a real lack of attention when it comes to the Phelps bill at all stages. Those opposite and many on the crossbench voted for that bill in this place at the end of last year without having received any legal advice as to its constitutionality in terms of what was sent to the other place, and we saw that play out over there. They also voted for the legislation without receiving any security briefing, not because it wasn't available but because they didn't think it necessary to seek that before voting on the legislation.

There has been no care. There has been no thought. There has been no concern about the protection of our borders and what the practical, real-world impact will be if this piece of legislation is passed. What those opposite are seeking to do is to give the people smugglers a product that they can sell. When we came into office we systematically put back in place that which those opposite had dismantled. We broke the people smugglers' business model. Those opposite want to give the people smugglers a product to sell. They want to provide a pipeline for the people smugglers to convey people on the high seas, putting forward the proposition that they can deliver an outcome for those that the people smugglers want to sell to. We cannot support that for one second.

It is the core business of the elected executive government of the day to protect our borders. That is something that should never ever be outsourced to anyone. It should never be outsourced to anyone. It is the responsibility of the elected executive government of the day. The Phelps bill seeks to outsource that solemn responsibility of government—in this case, to doctors. We have a high regard for doctors, but it's governments who are elected to discharge these duties. Also, the bill is based on a fundamentally false premise, that medical facilities and medical services are not available to those who are offshore. They are available to those who are offshore, and when they need services that aren't available there then that occurs. So this legislation is based on an absolutely false premise.

The other thing that those opposite and those looking to support the bill fail to recognise and acknowledge is the existence of something called pull factors. There are pull factors. There are push factors and there are pull factors. We saw that when Mr Rudd was putting himself forward to be Prime Minister of the nation. That government at that time essentially said that pull factors don't exist; it's only push factors. Well, pull factors do exist, and they are a core part of what people smugglers sell. It's a core part of what people smugglers put to people—that they can deliver an outcome. What they use for their marketing purposes are those things that the Australian Labor Party say and those things that the Australian Labor Party do and those things that the Greens say and those things that the Greens do.

What we see now is that the Labor Party have given up any pretence of there being bipartisanship when it comes to border protection. They've broken cover, and the Australian people have the opportunity to see where they stand.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The talks about giving up any pretence. Well, do you know who has stopped pretending? Mr Morrison has stopped pretending even to be Prime Minister. He can't even pretend to be Prime Minister. He's Prime Minister in name only. He's leading a government that is so riven by chaos and division, it has no agenda and no positive plans for the Australian people. If you needed any display of that, have a look at the House yesterday—the first government since 1929 to lose a vote on the floor of the House on its own legislation.

Let's remember the many positions this government has taken on the bill that is before the chamber, or the message that is reported. First Mr Morrison said, 'It's a stupid bill. It's superfluous.' Then this government, in a shameful act, leaked classified national security information in an attempt to undermine it. Then the government whipped out of the Prime Minister's pocket some advice saying it is unconstitutional, and, when the government lost the vote, suddenly it didn't matter again. So one minute it's superfluous and the next it's the end of the world. One minute it's a constitutional crisis and the next it's irrelevant. Do you know what this is? It is a pattern of deceit. It's a pattern of deceit and desperation from a man who is desperate to cling to office, a man who has nothing left but deceit, fear and smear. At least we have had the leaking of classified security information by this government being referred to the AFP. Scott Morrison wants to manufacture a fight because fear is all you lot have left. You can't campaign on your record, because your record is chaos and cuts. You can't campaign on stability, because you're busy fighting each other.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann on a point of order.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: Senator Wong is misleading the Senate. Our record on this is to stop the boats.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order, Senator Cormann.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Morrison's speech this week really confirmed that he has no agenda on the things that matter to the lives of the people we represent—nothing on schools, nothing on Medicare, nothing on hospitals, nothing on the NBN, nothing on wages, certainly nothing on climate change, and nothing about what he would do to fix the banks. It is very clear this government has nothing left but a fear campaign.

On the message and the bill that is before the chamber, Labor has always made clear that we believe it is possible to have strong border security policy but also to ensure that the people who we have a responsibility for who are ill and sick are treated appropriately by medical practitioners. Our two clear objectives have been making sure that sick people get the care they need and making sure that the minister has the final discretion when it comes to medical transfers.

We will never let the people smugglers back in business. We have been clear that we support offshore processing, turnbacks when safe to do so and regional resettlement—and we are responsible. You don't see us leaking classified information for political purposes—a completely shameful act by those opposite, by those who represent those opposite. We act on advice from agencies, as demonstrated in the constructive negotiations and the amendments which were put and agreed to against the votes of the government in the lower house. Those amendments enhance the security arrangements, extend the time frame of the government to refuse transfers and ensure that this legislation is ring-fenced. They will only apply to a fixed number of people who are already in regional processing. The bill requires the government to listen to the advice of doctors. It is not prospective and, of course, this legislation will continue the practice where people who are transferred for medical care will continue to be held in detention as a default and only the minister can approve their release.

There are lies being told about this bill by those opposite, and they are doing it because they are desperate. They are desperate. They are led by a desperate Prime Minister, who is leading a bitterly divided government. He is clearly only concerned about one thing: clinging on to his job. That is the only thing this has always been about. The shenanigans we saw at the end of last year: filibuster, filibuster, and then sending the House of Representatives home before you could deal with a national security bill. There was brinkmanship with national security—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a national security bill.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The telecommunications legislation was a national security bill, and you packed up shop in the lower house and played brinkmanship with national security! And you have the gall to come into here and talk about being responsible? You know the party that was responsible on that day? It was the Labor Party! And we will continue to be responsible while you play politics with national security. Well, we don't. We don't. Rather than running these lies, why don't you just call an election? (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to this debate and the histrionics and the nature of it reminds me of an adage that if you act in haste you repent at leisure. If you listen to those opposite, you'd think that they've done nothing wrong. Well, on the very last day of the sittings of last year, they were prepared to dismantle perhaps the most successful policy—some would say the only successful policy—which the coalition has carried through successive governments, and that is protecting our borders, stopping this insidious people smuggler trade and stopping people from gaming the system in trying to come to Australia.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You assisted the government by filibustering all day so they could run away!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill says I assisted them in delaying the passage of that bill, and I did. I did, because it was wrong. And you know what? The supercilious and the sanctimonious on the other side need to acknowledge that because their own opposition have amended it. They realised there were flaws and failings in it, and they've amended it to try to put lipstick on a pig. And this is a pig of a policy, there's no doubt about it.

Last year in this Senate, when I said they would be allowing paedophiles, domestic violence proponents, rapists into the country, they dismissed it. They said: 'We don't care. We've got to be compassionate.' And now they've put in a modest little amendment saying, 'If you've been convicted of these offences, you won't be allowed in.' The problem is that those who are committing these heinous crimes in detention and on Nauru haven't been convicted. They haven't been convicted of it. Nor have those that have been doing it overseas, as Senator Cormann said, in countries where raping a woman is not such a big deal or where paedophilia is accepted. And these people on the other side are prepared to dismantle those protections because they want to get a cheap political win.

And if you want to talk about random politics, these people—the Labor Party, the Greens, those on the crossbench—are gambling with the protection and safety of innocents. Not the innocents that Senator Di Natale pretends to stick up for, not the so-called innocents who pay people smugglers to enter a country illegally, who are prepared to threaten or coerce or damage others in order to get a free ride to Australia, but the innocents that are the Australian people.

When Labor dismantled Australia's most successful policy on border protection, it cost the Australian people billions of dollars. More than that, it cost the Australian people their safety and security. You can have a look at the refugees that you, on the other side, let into the country that have damaged Australia. You've damaged Australia's welfare system. You've damaged Australia's national security. Twelve hundred people, at a minimum, lost their lives at sea because of policies that you and the Greens enacted. You should be ashamed of yourselves, because now you've opened the door once again to this insidious trade.

In the greatest act of sophistry I've ever seen, the Labor opposition and the Greens are saying, 'It won't matter; this is a one-off event and it's only to get some people who are in need off Nauru right now.' Well, Senator Di Natale says that doctors are going to release hundreds of people off Nauru. He didn't say it would be under spurious conditions, but I can guarantee it would be under spurious conditions. If you haven't got a mental health condition—or a claim to have one—on Nauru now, if this bill passes, it will mean you are actually mentally ill, because you're not gaming the system enough.

What are these people going to do when the people-smuggling trade resurrects itself and there are boatloads of people and they're being put on Nauru? How long before you capitulate again and allow another several hundreds or thousands of people to come to this country to rip off the system? You should be ashamed of yourselves. After years of defending our borders and standing at one with the government, you are now prepared to dismantle what we've got because you're worshipping at the altar of Green nonsense. It is just extraordinary. You are prepared to sacrifice Australia's national security and national prosperity. You are prepared to sacrifice Australia's taxpayers' funds because you have this ideological obsession that you should be repatriating people to this country.

We all know what is going to happen. If you bring someone to this country, all the lawyers, all the pro bono people, will stand up and tie this up in the courts, and you will effectively be granting them permanent residence again. It is a shame. It is an indictment. Use some common sense—bring it back to this country, because it's desperately needed.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Time for the debate has expired. I will now put the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Collins which would allow her to move a precedence motion to deal with the motion that she has indicated she would like to move. The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the motion circulated in the chamber with respect to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be agreed to without amendment or debate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is now that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. The ayes have it?

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm putting a division. Senator Wong gets precedence, as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, so I have to put the motion from her.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

Honourable senators interjecting—

The question moved by Senator Wong is that the motion be put.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That—

(a) the message from the House of Representatives relating to the Senate amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be reported immediately,

(b) consideration of the message shall have precedence over all other business, including senators' statements and question time, until determined,

(c) immediately after the message is reported, the following motion in respect of the message shall be proposed from the Chair and considered without amendment:

That the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendments to the bill.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Mr President, can I please speak without someone heckling from immediately behind me?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't hear the heckling. It would be out of order for someone to do that, I remind senators. Senator Collins.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President.

(d) a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 5 minutes and, if the debate is not concluded—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's an outrageous gag.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps Senator Macdonald, if he can't help himself about interjecting, could at least move to his own seat.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interjecting is always disorderly; it's even more disorderly when one is out of one's seat. Can I ask senators to allow Senator Collins to read the motion—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Order! I ask senators to allow Senator Collins to read the motion for the courtesy of other senators. Continue. I think you were up to clause (d), Senator Collins.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Wong. Thank you, Mr President.

(d) a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 5 minutes and, if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the motion is proposed, the question on the motion shall then be put, and—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ultimate gag!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I would like all senators to be able to hear the motion. This is not a debate. It is reading the motion. Senator Collins.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I appreciate your protection. I was up to clause (e), which is the one of earlier contention. Let me read it very clearly and very slowly.

(e) at the conclusion of consideration of the message, government business order of the day No. 4 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 shall be called on and have precedence over all government business until determined.

I foreshadow that when we move this motion we will be seeking to move clause (e) separately.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've had a request, I should also say, from Senator Patrick—for the record—to put clause (e) separately. So I'm going to put clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)—because this motion is put without amendment or debate—of the motion Senator Collins read out and which has been circulated. The question is that clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that clause (e) of the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.