www.smh.com.auHome National Article
Government seeks immigration compromise
June 14, 2006 – 8:37PM
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Tough new immigration laws could be softened after a marathon meeting between concerned backbenchers and Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone.
Senator Vanstone spent several hours with the backbenchers today and hinted that a compromise could be found.
But the government still plans to force a debate on the draft laws in parliament tomorrow, despite a government dominated Senate committee recommending they be scrapped.
The legislation would send all unauthorised boat arrivals offshore to countries like Nauru for processing, rather than allow them to enter Australia.
That would lead to women and children being held in detention centres – reversing one of the changes won by backbenchers including moderate Liberals Judi Moylan, Petro Georgiou and Bruce Baird last year.
Senator Vanstone said while the government would not scrap the laws, it would consider changes – including those recommended in the report and by backbenchers.
“We hope to be able to respond very soon,” she told parliament.
“I probably shouldn't say much more than that, other than to say no, the government does not agree with the assertion that the bill should not go forward.
“But that doesn't mean the government is not looking at proposals put forward both by the Senate committee and some of our own backbenchers in relation to this matter.
“We are looking at that and I would expect that a response to the Senate committee report may not be the sole response of the government to concerns that are raised – because some of my own colleagues have raised concerns that perhaps aren't as clearly elucidated in that report.”
The backbenchers involved in the talks – believed to include Ms Moylan, Mr Georgiou, Mr Baird, Judith Troeth and Russell Broadbent – would not comment publicly about the meeting today.
But Ms Moylan and Mr Baird attended an event at Parliament House where refugee groups handed over a petition of 32,000 signatures protesting against the immigration changes.
“How do we guarantee the achievements that were made last time around as far as men and women out of detention, length of time, ombudsman involvement and guarantees that they would come back to Australia?” Mr Baird told reporters.
“These are issues we want to see addressed.”
Leaders of seven Australian churches have written to Mr Howard expressing their concerns about the laws.
National Council of Churches in Australia secretary Reverend John Henderson said the new laws would mean Australia would no longer be a place of asylum for those fleeing persecution.
Advertisement
AdvertisementTough new immigration laws could be softened after a marathon meeting between concerned backbenchers and Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone.
Senator Vanstone spent several hours with the backbenchers today and hinted that a compromise could be found.
But the government still plans to force a debate on the draft laws in parliament tomorrow, despite a government dominated Senate committee recommending they be scrapped.
The legislation would send all unauthorised boat arrivals offshore to countries like Nauru for processing, rather than allow them to enter Australia.
That would lead to women and children being held in detention centres – reversing one of the changes won by backbenchers including moderate Liberals Judi Moylan, Petro Georgiou and Bruce Baird last year.
Senator Vanstone said while the government would not scrap the laws, it would consider changes – including those recommended in the report and by backbenchers.
“We hope to be able to respond very soon,” she told parliament.
“I probably shouldn't say much more than that, other than to say no, the government does not agree with the assertion that the bill should not go forward.
“But that doesn't mean the government is not looking at proposals put forward both by the Senate committee and some of our own backbenchers in relation to this matter.
“We are looking at that and I would expect that a response to the Senate committee report may not be the sole response of the government to concerns that are raised – because some of my own colleagues have raised concerns that perhaps aren't as clearly elucidated in that report.”
The backbenchers involved in the talks – believed to include Ms Moylan, Mr Georgiou, Mr Baird, Judith Troeth and Russell Broadbent – would not comment publicly about the meeting today.
But Ms Moylan and Mr Baird attended an event at Parliament House where refugee groups handed over a petition of 32,000 signatures protesting against the immigration changes.
“How do we guarantee the achievements that were made last time around as far as men and women out of detention, length of time, ombudsman involvement and guarantees that they would come back to Australia?” Mr Baird told reporters.
“These are issues we want to see addressed.”
Leaders of seven Australian churches have written to Mr Howard expressing their concerns about the laws.
National Council of Churches in Australia secretary Reverend John Henderson said the new laws would mean Australia would no longer be a place of asylum for those fleeing persecution.
Mr Howard later said he and Senator Vanstone were working through “areas of difference” between the government and some backbenchers.
“We are having a discussion with some of our colleagues who have reservations about some aspects of the legislation,” he told reporters.
“We are working through these issues.
“This is the normal process of parliamentary democracy and we will continue to have those discussions.
“The important thing is to work through any differences and end up with a good result.”
Asked if he was prepared to make any concessions, Mr Howard said: “I don't think you can conduct negotiations with colleagues and friends through the media.”
“I'm not going into the details of those discussions.”
He was unwilling to say whether he still believed the legislation would get through before parliament breaks for a winter recess next week.
“I'm not going to start talking about times and everything, that's never helpful,” he said.
Mr Howard also said he was in disagreement with many aspects of a Senate report which wanted the government to abandon the bill.
“There are many things in it that I don't agree with,” he said.
