Division
Gavin Marshall Senator Hanson-Young, your amendment (7) would have been consequential on that amendment being successful, so I take it you will not proceed with amendment (7). Sarah Hanson-Young That is right. The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator. Then maybe we should now move to your amendment (5) on sheet 7683. My understanding is that was consequential as well. The CHAIRMAN: The question would be that part 3 of schedule 1 stand as printed. I think we will move on from that amendment if that is okay. The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would like to go to amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 7675. These are fairly basic amendments. They deal with removing the retrospectivity elements of this bill across all of the schedules—1, 2, 3 and 4. They speak for themselves. We should not, in this place, be creating legislation that is retrospective in its impact and its nature to pull the rug out from under people. It is a basic concept that we apply across the board when we are debating issues in this place that you do not make things retrospective. These amendments are fairly simple. They just say that, from the moment that this bill passes and has royal assent, that is when these new rules will apply. We should not be trying to change the rules backwards, which is effectively what the government is doing by having these retrospective elements in the legislation. Of course, I am concerned about the very real impact that will have on asylum seekers who do have their claims already on foot. I do not think it is fair at all, but it is a broader point than that. This is actually about ensuring that we stick by the basic notion that you do not make laws in this place retrospective. Because these amendments are all of the same nature, I seek leave to move them all together. Leave granted. I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 7675 revised: (1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (lines 3 to 12), omit subitems (1) and (2), substitute: (1) Section 5AAA of the _Migration Act 1958_ as amended by Part
Senate, 2015-03-25. negative: ayes 11, noes 34.
Question
Gavin Marshall Senator Hanson-Young, your amendment (7) would have been consequential on that amendment being successful, so I take it you will not proceed with amendment (7). Sarah Hanson-Young That is right. The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator. Then maybe we should now move to your amendment (5) on sheet 7683. My understanding is that was consequential as well. The CHAIRMAN: The question would be that part 3 of schedule 1 stand as printed. I think we will move on from that amendment if that is okay. The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would like to go to amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 7675. These are fairly basic amendments. They deal with removing the retrospectivity elements of this bill across all of the schedules—1, 2, 3 and 4. They speak for themselves. We should not, in this place, be creating legislation that is retrospective in its impact and its nature to pull the rug out from under people. It is a basic concept that we apply across the board when we are debating issues in this place that you do not make things retrospective. These amendments are fairly simple. They just say that, from the moment that this bill passes and has royal assent, that is when these new rules will apply. We should not be trying to change the rules backwards, which is effectively what the government is doing by having these retrospective elements in the legislation. Of course, I am concerned about the very real impact that will have on asylum seekers who do have their claims already on foot. I do not think it is fair at all, but it is a broader point than that. This is actually about ensuring that we stick by the basic notion that you do not make laws in this place retrospective. Because these amendments are all of the same nature, I seek leave to move them all together. Leave granted. I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 7675 revised: (1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (lines 3 to 12), omit subitems (1) and (2), substitute: (1) Section 5AAA of the _Migration Act 1958_ as amended by Part
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.