Designated Unauthorised Arrivals Bill 2006
 |
The Bill has been withdrawn 14 August 2006.
The new legislation for the Designated Unauthorised Arrivals Bill was introduced into Federal parliament on 11 May. On 13 June, the Senate inquiry recommended the Bill should not proceed . An amended Bill has passed the House of Representatives on Thursday 10 August. Read the speeches of dissenting coalition MPs. The amended Bill was scheduled for debate in the Senate on Monday 14 and Tuesday 15 August. However the Prime Minister announced on Monday that the Government will not be proceeding with the Bill. |
|
The GetUp! Australia petition, No Child in Detention, has been signed by over 100,000 people.
GetUp arranged the sky writing "Getup! Vote No" in the sky over Parliament House on the day the amended Bill was to have been debated in the Senate.
|
 |
PM pulls migration Bill
Prime Minister John Howard says the Government will not be proceeding with its controversial migration Bill. [...] "What has happened is that the Labor Party and a small number of coalition members and senators have together - not acting together, let me make that clear - but their views have virtually coincided, that combination means we would not secure passage of the legislation," he said.
Parliamentarians stand up for compassion
“We congratulate those MPs and Senators who stood up for compassion and human rights and opposed this bill. “Together with tens of thousands of people around the country who spoke out against this legislation we were able to prevent a serious injustice from being institutionalised. “A Just Australia sees the withdrawal of this legislation as consistent with the Parliament’s decision last year to move our immigration system in a more humane direction. Parliament has signalled today that it will not renege on this commitment it made to the Australian people.
Fielding to oppose migration Bill in Senate
Family First Senator Steve Fielding has announced he will vote against the Federal Government's proposal to extend offshore processing for asylum seekers. [...] "Family First is opposing the changes because it will see Australia no longer playing by the rules and I think most people understand that," he said. "Most Australians will realise, well, there are rules and it would be absolute chaos if every other country did what Australia is proposing. It's ludicrous.
Petro Georgiou speech to parliament
The ancient and universal tradition of providing sanctuary to those in danger is part of our refugee regime in Australia today, and it is demonstrated by the community at large when Australians respond generously to the suffering of others, both at home and abroad. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 does not reflect this tradition. It does not uphold the deeply held Australian values of giving people a fair go, and of decency and compassion. I regret that I cannot commend this bill to the House and I will be voting against it.
Judy Moylan speech to parliament
Mr Speaker this legislation amending the Migration Act is not a matter between conscience and patriotism. For surely each one is worthless without the other and ethical principles should inform them both. The stranger that stumbles upon our shores has a claim on both our conscience and our patriotism when he/she arrives with credentials uncontaminated by smugglers and pleading a case that at very least, is worthy of a fair hearing. The qualities that constitute fairness are not those that visit unmitigated sequestration and inhumanity upon the stranger.
Russell Broadbent speech to parliament
The decision I have taken to oppose this legislation, to follow my conscience and vote for the first time, and I hope the last time, against the government of which I was elected as a member, is made because it is in the long-term national interest of this great south land to continue to be a compassionate protector of the rights of refugees irrespective of the importance of the close relationship between Australia and one of our neighbours. There is no doubt that the changes introduced in the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 are being made as a reaction by the Australian government to Indonesian concerns about the correct and honourable decision by Australia to grant asylum to 43 refugees from West Papua.
Recommendations of the Senate inquiry: Provisions of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006
Recommendation 1: 3.208 In light of the limited information available to the committee, the committee recommends that the Bill should not proceed.
Recommendation 2: 3.209 In the event that the Bill proceeds, the committee recommends that the Bill be amended to ensure consistency with previous changes to Australia's refugee determination system including, but not limited to, government responses to the Palmer, Comrie and Commonwealth Ombudsman's reports.
[8 further recommendations follow]
Read additional comments from Senator Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrats.
Inquiry into the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006
On 11 May 2006, the Senate referred the above Bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 June 2006. Submissions closed on 22 May 2006.
Read ChilOut's submission...
Read the text of the bill...
Migration Act changes threaten the human rights of asylum seekers
The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that detention of children must be a last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. Under the proposed changes detention of children will be a measure of first resort, not last resort. These concerns are not new. The Commission’s two-year National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, A last resort? (published in April 2004), warned that the 2001 “Pacific Solution” breached several of Australia’s human rights obligations and recommended a review of the impact on children of the legislation that created the “Pacific Solution”. This recommendation was not implemented. The proposed changes do not address the possibility of excessive or indefinite detention. There is no set time for offshore processing of claims for asylum and no set time in which a person who is determined to be a refugee must be resettled in a third country. [...] The disastrous consequences of long-term detention on the mental health of asylum seekers are now beyond dispute. The proposed changes do not provide proper measures to address mental health concerns.
Minister Seeks To Strengthen Border Measures
The Government will seek to change the Migration Act through the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. ‘It means all people arriving unlawfully on the mainland by sea on or after April 13 will, after commencement of the Bill, be subject to the new provisions – including those airlifted to Australia at the end of their journey by sea,’ Senator Vanstone said. ‘It means we can move these people to off-shore processing centres in another country outside Australia for the processing of any claims that they are owed refugee protection. ‘They will not be able to apply for a visa within Australia without the Minister’s non-compellable personal intervention. [...] ‘The Government’s intention is that people found to be refugees will remain offshore for resettlement to a third country.’
Proposed Offshore Refugee Processing
The laws which the Government seek to put in place, coupled with various administrative arrangements cutting across a number of portfolios, raise the prospect of breaches of international law and violations of our international obligations. As bad as the Tampa laws were, they concerned ‘secondary movers’ — refugees who had fled from their homelands and had arrived in places like Malaysia and Indonesia before attempting to land in Australia. Papuan refugees, on the other hand, are fleeing directly from a country of persecution and are in a qualitatively different position.
Read the full A Just Australia briefing paper on proposed changes for Offshore Refugee Processing.
Proposed new Australian border control measures raise serious concerns – UN
The United Nations refugee agency today voiced serious concern over proposed new border control measures by Australia to deal with asylum seekers arriving by boat, including their transferral offshore, even if they have reached the mainland, to have their claims processed. “If this were to happen, it would be an unfortunate precedent, being for the first time, to our knowledge, that a country with a fully functioning and credible asylum system, in the absence of anything approximating a mass influx, decides to transfer elsewhere the responsibility to handle claims made actually on the territory of the state,” the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said.
Read the history of children in immigration detention in Australia.