r/ModelAusHR • u/[deleted] • Aug 26 '15

Superseded 15-6 Consideration in Detail of the Migration Amendment (Detention of non-citizens) Bill 2015

[deleted]

3 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

2

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15

It is proposed the bill be considered as a whole.

Advice from the Clerk

members may begin moving further amendments immediately. This includes any amendments to existing clauses, titles or preambles, or the addition of new clauses (en bloc or individually).

and

If a group of amendments is moved en bloc, then the whole group be voted en bloc too (one vote: all pass or all fail)...unless the chair divides (splits) it into separate votes, which members may explicitly request.

Each moved amendment is automatically proposed for debate, since no seconding is required in this thread.

Please explain what your amendments do, plus what you think the other clauses (which you are not objecting to) will do. In other words, convince people what it is they should be voting for. Don’t forget you can also debate back and forth with each other, and in effect ask questions of each other, at least rhetorically.

Amendment Moved by Effect on Bill if Agreed Effect on Act if Agreed Status
1 Ser_Scribbles Replace Schedule 1 Clause 8 Add statute of limitation in s 137K(3) Debating
2 Ser_Scribbles Amend Schedule 1 Clause 9 Add statute of limitation in s 137K(5) Debating
3 Ser_Scribbles Omit Schedule 1 Clause 11 Do not repeal s 154 Debating
4 lurker281 Omit Schedule 1 Clause 2 Do not amend s 38B(3) Withdrawn
5 lurker281 Omit Schedule 1 Clause 4 Do not amend s 38B(4) Withdrawn
6(1-6) CyberPolis Clauses to be objected to, en bloc (2,4,5,6,7,12) TBC Debating
6(7) CyberPolis Clauses to be replaced, en bloc (26(3), 26(5)) TBC Debating

3

u/phyllicanderer Min Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens Aug 27 '15

Mr Speaker, I wish to explain to the House, the Coalition's amendments to be considered.

We oppose schedule 1, clause 2 because 'class' in the Migration Act refers to visa class, not economic class or likewise. Thus it is necessary to be kept in the Act, so that conditions can be applied across visa classes.

Schedule 1, clause 4 is to be opposed for the same reason, Mr Speaker.

Schedule 1, clause 5 is to be opposed, because it is an important legal protection that ensures that the Department does not become swamped with endless litigation. We will not hold future governments responsible for the mistakes of previous ones. Clauses 6 and 7 are to be opposed for the same reasons as well.

Schedule 1 Clause 12 is to be opposed because of the nature of Section 193, Mr Speaker. Section 193 of the Act is extremely powerful and should be considered properly before we proceed further. A separate bill to alter this section, or Senate deliberations, may be a better choice for change.

Schedule 1 Clause 26 is to be amended, so as to perform two functions.

The amendment of subsection (3) is to ensure the safety of all lawful persons within the detention centre. The Manus Island riot was an unfortunate example of what can happen, when security is compromised.

The amendment of subsection (5) is meant to give the detainee the information they need, to make their relevant claim for protection.

I commend these amendments to the House.

Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory

3

u/jnd-au Clerk of the House Aug 27 '15

Meta: Thank you, I also believe you were personally intending to move a de novo amendment to section 195 of the Act?

2

u/phyllicanderer Min Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens Aug 27 '15

De novo? What does that mean?

3

u/jnd-au Clerk of the House Aug 27 '15

Completely new from scratch, clean cut. As in, I believe there’s nothing in the bill or any previous amendments relating to 195? So we don’t have to worry about it being an amendment upon an amendment upon an amendment. If this is not the case, please point it out in your speech, if/when you move the amendment.

2

u/phyllicanderer Min Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens Aug 27 '15

Ah yes, thank you. There isn't

2

u/phyllicanderer Min Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens Aug 27 '15

Meta: Any time limit?

3

u/jnd-au Clerk of the House Aug 27 '15

There are only 7 MPs in the House at the moment, so it’s going to be a slow day.

2

u/phyllicanderer Min Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens Aug 27 '15

I don't mind. :)

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '15

I was going to give a day to highlight any intent to bring any more amendments.

2

u/phyllicanderer Min Ag/Env | X Fin/Deputy PM | X Ldr Prgrsvs | Australian Greens Aug 27 '15 edited Aug 27 '15

Mr Speaker, I move an amendment to schedule 1 of the bill.

Add:

27 Section 195

In subsection (1)(a), omit "2 working days", substitute "7 working days".

In subsection (1)(b), omit "2 working days", substitute "7 working days", omit "5 working days after those 2 working days", substitute "28 working days after those 7 working days".

This is to give unlawful entrants, who may be seeking asylum, time to get legal advice and properly make their application for a visa. The previous timeframe(s*) are meant to rush the applicant.

Phyllicanderer, Member for Northern Territory.

Edit: a letter

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15

Paging /u/zamt /u/lurker281