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

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

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

I move:

That a motion relating to a direction to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without debate.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ayres that the procedural motion be put be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the procedural motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

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

I move:

That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing on 26 March 2024, of not less than two hours, for the purposes of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name to the motion of Senator Birmingham:

Omit all words after "That", substitute 'the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024".

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Consistent with the contingent notice circulated in Senator Waters's name, I move:

That so much of sessional and standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a short contribution.

It's good to finally be able to speak on this now that the stitch-up is in between Labor and the coalition. It is a stitch-up again in this denial of democracy, this rush to be as cruel as you can as quickly as you can. Sometimes we look in this place and we think, 'Well, maybe Labor's slightly less crap on asylum seekers'—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, withdraw.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. We think that maybe Labor is slightly less woeful and despicable than the coalition when it comes to dealing with people seeking asylum, but then Labor can always surprise us. No matter how far the coalition goes to the right on refugees and asylum seekers, no matter how far they drag Labor to the right, Labor always seems willing to match them. But today we actually see Labor trying to outflank the coalition on cruelty and to go even further to the right than the coalition ever conceived of doing. That's what this bill is. This is Labor engaged in a process of trying to outflank the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, on cruelty to asylum seekers. I've got to tell you, that's a race Labor can never win, because the coalition will always be willing to go one further offensive step beyond that. So this sham inquiry that you're agreeing to for two hours tonight, during Senator Rice's valedictory speech, as disrespectful as that is—be disrespectful to senators, by all means—is disrespectful to the rule of law.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you that you have moved a contingent motion, so your debate should at least be framed around the issue of suspending the standing orders that would prevent you from making a statement.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is this urgent? This is urgent because, unless we stop this now, this ugly rush to the right of cruelty will just be a continuing play. This is urgent because the coalition and Labor are doing a stitch-up job on legislation that's still warm from the photocopiers, and the only reason they're agreeing to it is that it's brutal and cruel to refugees and asylum seekers. This is urgent because it is essential that we try to turn this chamber and this parliament around and finally have a shred of decency. This is urgent because when will Labor stop? What is the length to which Labor will go in order to try to outflank the coalition on being cruel to refugees and asylum seekers? Today we're getting a sense that there is no limit for the Albanese Labor government as to how brutally cruel they'll be to refugees in this race to the bottom against the coalition. This is urgent because where does it stop? Trying to outflank Peter Dutton on cruelty to asylum seekers is a no-win for Labor, for this chamber and for our country.

We heard the opposition say today that this motion is going to provide a transparent hearing to scrutinise the government's legislation. How are we going to hear from NGOs and from critical stakeholders in this space to seriously scrutinise around 100 pages of legislation and explanatory memorandum in a sham inquiry that you're trying to ram through in two hours tonight? That's about as transparent as a brick.

This is yet another example of how, when it comes to being cruel to people seeking asylum, the coalition and Labor just tip their brains out, tip their hearts out, and then just run this ugly race on unfairness and cruelty. This is urgent because we shouldn't be saying to the Australian public that the parliament thinks that a sham two-hour inquiry on legislation that's still warm from the photocopier is in any way doing our job of scrutinising legislation.

We know what's going to happen. Labor is going to stuff it up again—have it full of legal error, have it challenged in the High Court and then, when it all starts unravelling again, the coalition is going to say, 'Oh, Labor is hopeless and incompetent and terrible'. And they are probably right. Then we're going to have this whole sham process over again. This is an ongoing process of cruelty, let's be clear. This is months and months and months of ongoing cruelty, as Labor keep chasing the coalition to the right with this ugly politics. As Greens senators, as Greens representatives, we say no to that, and we are saying no to that here.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ayres that the question be put be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Shoebridge to suspend be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to Senator Birmingham's motion in the following terms:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2024; and

(b) for the purposes of the inquiry, the Senate directs the Committee to hold at least one public hearing of not less than 5 hours.

I seek leave to make a two-minute statement.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've seen again a worrying lack of process from the Labor government. Senator Scarr talked earlier about the legislation being stamped on Friday. It's Tuesday morning; we get a quick look at it, and they want to ram it through with the coalition's support. Despite protesting, they're happy just to sign this off. We saw the criticisms, when it comes to human rights, of the last legislation that was rushed through this place. You'd think we'd learn from it as a parliament.

The way the government has treated the lower house Independents today is disgraceful. It's totally disgraceful to not allow them to say anything, to gag debate and to not even allow them to move amendments to this bill. We were promised so much by the Labor government and this is what we're getting: this lack of process and lack of transparency. I thought Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi, summed it up when she said: 'If this is the best form of democracy Labor can give us, then I am sorely disappointed and I'm sure my constituents are too. Australians should be worried.'

The contents of this bill aside—I'm not across it yet; we were given a hundred pages this morning—in terms of process, this should absolutely go through the Senate committee process. As Senator Shoebridge pointed out, we are dealing with human beings here. This has a material impact on people like you and me who have hopes and dreams. We should ensure that the laws we make have been well thought out and scrutinised, and then decide that, yes, this weighs human rights with community safety. It's so disappointing to see the Labor government doing this after all that they promised us.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.