Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move government business notice of motion No. 1:

(1)

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

(2)

That the bill may be taken together for its remaining stages with the Migration Amendment (Review Provisions) Bill 2006 [2007].

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens oppose this motion for a number of reasons that I will briefly outline to the Senate. This motion deals with two pieces of migration legislation. One is the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006. The primary component of this motion is to exempt it from the cut-off. The border integrity bill is a piece of legislation that brings in biometric facial recognition technology for use in Customs. There are questions about the capacity of that technology and the error rates associated with it which the Australian Greens believe should be explored through a Senate inquiry to ensure that we understand what the error rates are. A recent Senate inquiry looked at the issue around the access card, and the same problems with biometric technology were raised there. We would like to be able to explore that issue in a Senate inquiry.

When this legislation was debated just last night in the House of Representatives, concerns were raised about legislative creep. As it currently stands this legislation has some restrictions in it in terms of keeping information—biometric photographs of people. That information cannot be kept now, which is good, but we have not had the opportunity to get from the government the assurances that there will not be legislative creep with this legislation. So those are the concerns that the Greens have.

We are in a position to be able to support the bill but we want to be able to ask questions about that process, and this exemption from the cut-off does not allow us to do that. Clearly, if this motion proceeds and the government does force the Senate to restrict its opportunity for debate on this legislation and not hear from experts, not hear from the public, not hear from the people who know about the error rates in biometric facial technology—I do not reckon everyone here is an expert on it—then the only option left open to us will be to discuss that in the committee stage of this bill, which we will do.

We are quite happy to support this kind of legislation bringing in these proposals, but we want to hear more about how it would be implemented, what kinds of assurances there would be and what kinds of error rates we have got with the technology. That is why we would like to have the opportunity to have that discussion and debate. If the government proposes to do it this way then we will have to have that discussion in the committee stage. We are not all experts in biometric facial recognition technology and we believe that hearing from experts would be helpful to the Senate debate.

The other part of this motion is that the border integrity bill be taken together with the Migration Amendment (Review Provisions) Bill 2006 [2007]. This is one bill on which there has been a Senate inquiry and there have been recommendations out of that inquiry—in particular, in relation to the Refugee Review Tribunal taking oral evidence. Those are recommendations which the government-dominated Senate inquiry supported and which the Greens supported and would like to see implemented.

For us the difficulty is created in the government seeking to move these two bills together, because we are supportive of the border integrity bill, but we have amendments which were put forward in recommendations from the Senate committee that we want to see implemented, and to date we have had no indication from the government that they will be supporting those amendments. That makes a difference for us in terms of how we deal with that piece of legislation. If the government does not accept its own government-dominated Senate inquiry recommendations around that issue then we will be in a position of wanting to support one piece of legislation and not the other. Therefore, we do not want the two bills to be taken together.

We are actually prepared to have the debate at the same time but, if we hear from the government a refusal to accept its own committee’s recommendations, we may want to vote differently on these two bills. Perhaps the Clerk or the chair or the minister can inform us on this. We do not mind the debate occurring on the two bills together, but we want to be able to have the vote separately, because if the government does not accept the recommendations then we may need to do that.

Those are the two issues of concern that we have. One is that we want to hear from technical experts about the biometric facial recognition technology, and we have not had the opportunity to do that. The other is that we may well have differing positions if the government does not accept its own Senate inquiry’s recommendations. Therefore, whilst we are prepared to have debate on the bills together, we want to ensure that we can have the vote separately.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, this is another opportunistic attempt by the Greens to suggest to the Australian public that due process is not being followed in relation to some important legislation that is coming before this place. There are two pieces of legislation. To start with the last matter first, the simple fact is that when you deal with two bills together, of course it is possible to put the two bills to a vote separately, and we would be putting the two bills separately. There would be separate votes. I think most of the senators would have known that and I would have thought a very brief phone call to the Clerk’s office would have revealed that—rather than trying to make suggestions in this place that a separate vote would somehow be denied.

In relation to the bill that the Greens tell us they support but want to have an inquiry into, can I just remind honourable senators that this bill has been floating around for about five months. It was introduced late last year and there was a report by the Selection of Bills Committee—and the Greens have a representative on that committee. The report of that committee was tabled and adopted on 19 October last year, and do you know what the recommendation was? That there be no report or inquiry into the bill. That is what the Greens agreed to. That was tabled and reported to this place on 19 October last year. Here we are on 28 March, being broadcast, and as a result the Greens are trying to say that they are here trying to rescue the Senate from the evils of the Howard government. Well, the Howard government has had this legislation on the table for nearly a full half-year. The Greens did not want an inquiry into this bill. Now, all of a sudden, when we are about to debate it, they do.

What I say to the honourable senator is that if she has any questions about this bill they can be raised during the committee stages. We will be going through the normal committee stages, the normal processes of the Senate, but we think that from an expediency point of view it makes good sense to debate two bills that relate to matters of immigration together. If there are any specific problems or concerns—genuine problems—that the senator has, I wonder whether she has actually rung the minister’s office and inquired as to whether or not she might be given the benefit of certain advice from advisers of that office? I just have a hunch that, like with the Selection of Bills Committee, no such request was made, but the Greens come in here in a flurry suggesting that they are genuinely interested in the legislative process and in informing themselves as to the detail.

The simple facts are that these bills will be voted on separately and there will be a committee stage where these matters can be explored. I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship would be more than willing to provide advice to the honourable senator so that she can be even better informed when the debate commences.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, you are on your feet, but Senator Abetz has concluded the debate. No-one stood before he did.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a comment.

Leave not granted.

Is Senator Abetz not giving leave?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be noted.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Question put.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Mr President, with regard to the behaviour of a senator who, just before the division, appeared to be making a threat to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and, in a very menacing way, said, ‘This will be noted.’ This suggests to me that the day will be spent now on quorums and stupid points of order. Mr President, could you rule, perhaps on reflection, on whether the words of the senator were in fact an infringement of the rules.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe they are. Like you, I did hear what was said. The words themselves were not unparliamentary, nor were they intimidating. I must admit there was a certain inclination in the voice, but I am not going to rule on that. I therefore cannot accept the point of order.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: when you are looking at this issue, I ask you to pay attention—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already ruled.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have said that you are not going to make a ruling on this and so—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I just said there was no point of order. That is what I ruled on.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of honourable senators, I do not feel overly threatened by the comment that was made earlier by a disgruntled senator.