Division
Peter Dutton This is one of the most serious debates that this parliament could enter into, but we're entering into this debate in one of the most farcical circumstances I can recall in my more than two decades in this parliament. This is a very serious issue for the government to contemplate. To put it into context, the government has had since June to compose legislation, to seek legal advice from the Solicitor-General and to resolve these matters which have arisen because of the judgement within the High Court. None of that has taken place. We went in for briefings earlier this week, on Monday, to be told by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs that this bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, and the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 were to be dealt with on Monday. They wanted to deal with the two bills, to rush them through, in a haphazard way, which is a similar outcome to what happened in the last sitting week—no correspondence entered into, no legal advice being made available to the opposition so that we can contemplate our position, just this jackboot operation to drive it through the chamber here. What we're seeing at the moment is an opportunity for the government to move this bill as quickly as possible into the upper house, because that would mean that there would be no consideration in detail in the lower house. It would mean that the reasonable amendments that we have to move wouldn't be individually voted on by the members of the government, because they don't want to be in a position where their constituents hear what Labor is really concocting here, and that is a vote against the very reasonable suggestions that we've made by way of amendments—which have been outlined by the shadow minister for immigration—to make Australia safer. That's what they're trying to circumvent here, and that's why the motion has just been move
House of Representatives, 2023-11-29. negative: ayes 11, noes 67.
Question
Peter Dutton This is one of the most serious debates that this parliament could enter into, but we're entering into this debate in one of the most farcical circumstances I can recall in my more than two decades in this parliament. This is a very serious issue for the government to contemplate. To put it into context, the government has had since June to compose legislation, to seek legal advice from the Solicitor-General and to resolve these matters which have arisen because of the judgement within the High Court. None of that has taken place. We went in for briefings earlier this week, on Monday, to be told by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs that this bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, and the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 were to be dealt with on Monday. They wanted to deal with the two bills, to rush them through, in a haphazard way, which is a similar outcome to what happened in the last sitting week—no correspondence entered into, no legal advice being made available to the opposition so that we can contemplate our position, just this jackboot operation to drive it through the chamber here. What we're seeing at the moment is an opportunity for the government to move this bill as quickly as possible into the upper house, because that would mean that there would be no consideration in detail in the lower house. It would mean that the reasonable amendments that we have to move wouldn't be individually voted on by the members of the government, because they don't want to be in a position where their constituents hear what Labor is really concocting here, and that is a vote against the very reasonable suggestions that we've made by way of amendments—which have been outlined by the shadow minister for immigration—to make Australia safer. That's what they're trying to circumvent here, and that's why the motion has just been move
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.