Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download PDFDownload PDF 

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

    24   Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time—And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr L. D. T. Ferguson, viz.—That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House of Representatives notes with concern:

(1)    that certain policies of the Government, including processes for the use of ministerial discretion, limited tenure for members of the Refugee Review Tribunal, aspects of the detention policy and a lack of proper case management for claimants, have caused a significant increase in migration litigation;

(2)    that the Government refuses to make the report of the Penfold inquiry public and urgently requests the Government to make the report available;

(3)    that this bill uses the mechanism of ‘purported privative clause decisions’ to restrict judicial review of decisions made with jurisdictional error, which may be ineffective;

(4)    the views of Labor Senators during consideration of the Migration Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2004 that similar time-limit provisions could be unconstitutional;

(5)    that the time-limits proposed could prevent some applicants from exercising their right to judicial review;

(6)    that this bill make changes to the Acts governing the High Court, Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court with respect to summary judgements that would affect all litigation, not simply migration litigation;

(7)    that the provisions allowing cost orders against persons who encourage others to commence litigation without reasonable prospects of success would apply to volunteer and pro bono lawyers and advisers, and would apply without any cap on the costs that could be ordered and that these provisions may be too broad, with no clear explanation of how the ‘no reasonable prospects of success’ test is to work in practice; and

(8)    that this bill does not include the proposal contained in the Australian Labor Party’s policy ‘Protecting Australia and Protecting the Australian Way’ to establish a Refugee Status Determination Tribunal”

Debate resumed.

Ordered—That Mr Kerr be granted an extension of time.

Debate continued.

Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question—put.


The House divided (the Deputy Speaker, Mr Jenkins, in the Chair)—

AYES, 76

Mr Abbott

Mr Entsch

Jackie Kelly

Mr Ruddock

Mr Anderson

Mr Farmer

Mr Laming

Mr Schultz

Mr Andrews

Mr Fawcett

Mrs Ley

Mr Scott

Fran Bailey

Mr M. D. Ferguson

Mr Lindsay

Mr Secker

Mr Baird

Mr Forrest *

Mr Lloyd

Mr Slipper

Mr Baker

Ms Gambaro

Mr McArthur *

Mr A. D. H. Smith

Mr Barresi

Mrs Gash

Mr Macfarlane

Dr Southcott

Mr Bartlett

Mr Georgiou

Mrs Markus

Dr Stone

Mrs B. K. Bishop

Mr Haase

Mrs May

Mr C. P. Thompson

Ms J. Bishop

Mr Hardgrave

Mrs Moylan

Mr Tollner

Mr Broadbent

Mr Hartsuyker

Mr Nairn

Mr Truss

Mr Brough

Mr Henry

Mr Neville

Mr Tuckey

Mr Cadman

Mr Hockey

Ms Panopoulos

Mr Turnbull

Mr Causley

Mr Hunt

Mr Pearce

Mr M. A. J. Vaile

Mr Ciobo

Dr Jensen

Mr Prosser

Mrs D. S. Vale

Mr Cobb

Mr Johnson

Mr Pyne

Mr Vasta

Mr Downer

Mr Katter

Mr Randall

Mr Wakelin

Mr Dutton

Mr Keenan

Mr Richardson

Dr Washer

Mrs Elson

Mrs D. M. Kelly

Mr Robb

Mr Wood

NOES, 51

Mr Adams

Ms A. L. Ellis

Ms Hoare

Ms Plibersek

Mr Albanese

Ms K. M. Ellis

Mrs Irwin

Mr Price

Mr Bevis

Mr L. Ferguson

Mr Kerr

Mr Quick

Ms Bird

Mr Garrett

Ms C. King

Mr Ripoll

Mr Bowen

Mr Georganas

Dr Lawrence

Mr Rudd

Ms A. E. Burke

Ms George

Ms Livermore

Mr Sawford

Mr A. S. Burke

Mr Gibbons

Mr McClelland

Mr Sercombe

Mr Byrne

Ms Gillard

Mr McMullan

Mr Snowdon

Ms Corcoran

Ms Grierson

Mr Melham

Mr Tanner

Mr Crean

Mr Griffin

Mr Murphy

Mr K. J. Thomson

Mr Danby *

Ms Hall *

Mr B. P. O’Connor

Ms Vamvakinou

Mr Edwards

Mr Hatton

Mr G. M. O’Connor

Mr Wilkie

Mrs Elliot

Mr Hayes

Ms Owens


* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put and passed—bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved immediately.

On the motion of Mr Ruddock (Attorney-General), the bill was read a third time.