Division
Tony Zappia I have listened to all of the opposition speakers who have spoken on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 and all I heard from each and every one of them was an attack on the unions, an attack on the minister, talk about refugee policy, which has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever, and talk about border protection. Not once did any member opposite specifically address the substance and the merits of this bill, which seeks to ensure that Australia's interests in offshore projects are indeed protected. I commend the member for Wills, who pointed that out so well and so clearly in his contribution to this debate. Coalition members would like to see the multinationals that control the resource industry in Australia, both onshore and offshore, continue to operate without any restrictions and responsibilities. It is time that that came to an end. There is no logical reason whatsoever why the resources that are found offshore should be treated differently to the resources found on land in Australia and why workers who work on those resources on land should be treated any differently to the workers who are dealing with the resources found in the oceans. This legislation arises from the Federal Court decision in the Allseas v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship case. The court found that the foreign workers in that case—those on board the two pipe-laying vessels _Lorelay_ and _Solitaire_were not within the Australian migration zone and therefore did not require Australian visas. As a result of that decision, a task force was convened. I make it clear that that was done by the previous minister for immigration, not the current minister, whom members opposite seek to condemn and criticise because of what they refer to as his self-interest in this matter. The task force was asked to consider a response to the Federal Court decision so as to ensure that those projects did in fact fall within Australian jurisdiction. I note that th
House of Representatives, 2013-06-17. affirmative: ayes 73, noes 69.
Question
Tony Zappia I have listened to all of the opposition speakers who have spoken on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 and all I heard from each and every one of them was an attack on the unions, an attack on the minister, talk about refugee policy, which has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever, and talk about border protection. Not once did any member opposite specifically address the substance and the merits of this bill, which seeks to ensure that Australia's interests in offshore projects are indeed protected. I commend the member for Wills, who pointed that out so well and so clearly in his contribution to this debate. Coalition members would like to see the multinationals that control the resource industry in Australia, both onshore and offshore, continue to operate without any restrictions and responsibilities. It is time that that came to an end. There is no logical reason whatsoever why the resources that are found offshore should be treated differently to the resources found on land in Australia and why workers who work on those resources on land should be treated any differently to the workers who are dealing with the resources found in the oceans. This legislation arises from the Federal Court decision in the Allseas v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship case. The court found that the foreign workers in that case—those on board the two pipe-laying vessels _Lorelay_ and _Solitaire_were not within the Australian migration zone and therefore did not require Australian visas. As a result of that decision, a task force was convened. I make it clear that that was done by the previous minister for immigration, not the current minister, whom members opposite seek to condemn and criticise because of what they refer to as his self-interest in this matter. The task force was asked to consider a response to the Federal Court decision so as to ensure that those projects did in fact fall within Australian jurisdiction. I note that th
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.