This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Immigration, border & security
The bill would have required the Australian Government to offer transfer to Australia to people still held in offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. in Papua New Guinea or Nauru, unless ASIOThis is the agency that could block a transfer if it gave someone an adverse security assessment. had given them an adverse security assessmentThis means ASIO has decided a person is a security risk, which would stop them from getting the transfer offer under this bill..
People were still being held in offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, with no deadline to bring eligible people to Australia. The bill requires transfer offers within a month, moves people into community detentionThis is a form of detention in the community rather than in a locked immigration detention centre. in Australia, provides needed medical or psychiatric care, and stops them being sent back offshore.
After Australia reintroduced offshore detention in 2013, some asylum seekers remained in Papua New Guinea and Nauru for years, and although Parliament created medevac transfer rules in 2019, there was still no general deadline requiring the government to offer evacuation to Australia for people left offshore. Senator Nick McKim’s 2023 bill responded by proposing compulsory transfer offers within one month, community detentionThis is a form of detention in the community rather than in a locked immigration detention centre. and medical or psychiatric care in Australia, but the Senate defeated it at the second reading stageThis is the main debate stage in the Senate where the bill was rejected before it could become law., leaving the offshore-processing arrangements unchanged.
The main case against the bill was that bringing the remaining offshore cohortThis refers to the group of people still left in the offshore processing system when the bill was introduced. to Australia could weaken regional processingThis is the policy of sending asylum seekers to another country for processing instead of dealing with their claims in Australia. and reopen a people-smuggling pull factor. That criticism was raised most clearly by Coalition senators, while Labor also opposed the bill as unnecessary because it said existing regional processingThis is the policy of sending asylum seekers to another country for processing instead of dealing with their claims in Australia., resettlement and visa pathways were already handling the issue.
Senator Nick McKim introduced this bill. It was supported by Greens, some crossbench members; opposed by Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
29 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would have required the Australian Government to offer transfer to Australia to people still held in offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. in Papua New Guinea or Nauru, unless ASIOThis is the agency that could block a transfer if it gave someone an adverse security assessment. had given them an adverse security assessmentThis means ASIO has decided a person is a security risk, which would stop them from getting the transfer offer under this bill..
The bill would have made the government send those transfer offers within one month of the law starting, creating a clear deadline for moving eligible people.
People brought to Australia under the bill would have been placed straight into community detentionThis is a form of detention in the community rather than in a locked immigration detention centre. rather than locked in an immigration detention facility.
The bill would have required the minister to arrange needed medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment for transferred people as soon as practical after they arrived in Australia.
People transferred to Australia under the bill could not have been sent back to offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. under the Migration Act rules for unauthorised maritime arrivals.
This Bill will compel the Government to offer transfer to Australia to all persons subject to offshore processing still in PNG or Nauru who are not subject to an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) explanatory memorandum
This Bill will compel the Government to make offers of transfer to all eligible persons within one month of the commencement of the Bill.Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) explanatory memorandum
Upon arrival in Australia, persons transferred under the provisions of the Act will be immediately placed into community detention under a transferred person determination by the Minister. As such, transferred persons will not be placed into a held detention facility (including alternative places of detention).Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) explanatory memorandum
As soon as is practicable after a transferred person’s arrival in Australia, the Minister will arrange and make available any appropriate medical or psychiatric assessment or treatment that person requires.Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) explanatory memorandum
Under the provisions of the Act, people transferred to Australia will be exempt from powers under the Migration Act 1958 that require unauthorised maritime arrivals to be taken to a regional processing country.Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) explanatory memorandum
Context
After Australia reintroduced offshore detention in 2013, some asylum seekers remained in Papua New Guinea and Nauru for years, and although Parliament created medevac transfer rules in 2019, there was still no general deadline requiring the government to offer evacuation to Australia for people left offshore. Senator Nick McKim’s 2023 bill responded by proposing compulsory transfer offers within one month, community detentionThis is a form of detention in the community rather than in a locked immigration detention centre. and medical or psychiatric care in Australia, but the Senate defeated it at the second reading stageThis is the main debate stage in the Senate where the bill was rejected before it could become law., leaving the offshore-processing arrangements unchanged.
Australia reintroduces offshore detention for boat arrivals
A policy later described in Senate debate as sending boat-arrival asylum seekers to offshore detention in PNG and Nauru created the system this bill sought to unwind.
Hansard ↗Parliament changes medical evacuation rules for offshore detainees
The medevac amendments put deadlines and ministerial decision-making around medical transfers, showing Parliament had previously intervened on offshore detention without ending it altogether.
Australian Financial Review ↗Senator Nick McKim introduces the evacuation to safety bill
The bill proposed mandatory transfer offers within one month for eligible people still in PNG or Nauru, with transfer to community detentionThis is a form of detention in the community rather than in a locked immigration detention centre. in Australia until a third-country solutionThis means finding another country to take the person eventually, so Australia is only a temporary place under the bill. was found.
Australian Parliament House ↗Senate rejects the bill at the second reading stageThis is the main debate stage in the Senate where the bill was rejected before it could become law.
The second reading was negatived, so the proposed deadline for transfer offers and the ban on sending transferred people back to offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. did not become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (09/02/2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (07/03/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading negatived
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that bringing the remaining offshore cohortThis refers to the group of people still left in the offshore processing system when the bill was introduced. to Australia could weaken regional processingThis is the policy of sending asylum seekers to another country for processing instead of dealing with their claims in Australia. and reopen a people-smuggling pull factor. That criticism was raised most clearly by Coalition senators, while Labor also opposed the bill as unnecessary because it said existing regional processingThis is the policy of sending asylum seekers to another country for processing instead of dealing with their claims in Australia., resettlement and visa pathways were already handling the issue.
Criticism focused on border-protection risk and policy need, not on the bill’s humanitarian aim itself.
Could weaken border deterrence
Opponents argued that ending offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. for this cohort by transferring them to Australia could signal a softening of border protection and give people smugglers an opportunity to restart their trade.
Bill said to be unnecessary and out of step with current policy
Labor argued the bill was not needed because the government was already dealing with the offshore cohortThis refers to the group of people still left in the offshore processing system when the bill was introduced. through regional processingThis is the policy of sending asylum seekers to another country for processing instead of dealing with their claims in Australia., third-country resettlement and permanent visa pathways, and said the proposal did not fit its broader migration framework.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 12 to 24. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
McKim supports the bill and says it should evacuate the remaining offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. cohort to safety in Australia until they get a durable third-country solutionThis means finding another country to take the person eventually, so Australia is only a temporary place under the bill..
Read in Hansard ↗Green says the government will not support the bill because its approach to migration and refugee policy is already being handled through regional processingThis is the policy of sending asylum seekers to another country for processing instead of dealing with their claims in Australia., third-country resettlement, and permanent visa pathways.
Read in Hansard ↗Pocock supports the bill and says it is a chance to move people out of offshore detention in Papua New Guinea and Nauru into Australia, because the current system is cruel, costly, and harmful to the people stuck in it.
Read in Hansard ↗Scarr opposes the bill and says the Senate should reject it because he thinks ending regional processingThis is the policy of sending asylum seekers to another country for processing instead of dealing with their claims in Australia. this way could give people smugglers a chance to restart their trade.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“At the same time we are working through years of neglect by the previous government, to make sure that third-country resettlement is a priority—and it's happening. We're getting on with it. We have halved the number of people on Nauru. We are working through this. We're doing it in a diligent and organised way without being sensational about it and without putting people at risk. This is what our government is doing, and it's because we can be tough on borders that we are choosing not to be weak on humanity. Only a Labor government can do that. Only a Labor government is ending the years of uncertainty for TPV and SHEV holders. I want to ensure those people who have contributed to the inquiry into this bill that we have undertaken to balance those very fragile considerations—this bill should not be supported. This bill is not the policy of the government for a very good reason.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“That is the fundamental reason why I and those sitting on this side of the chamber in dealing with this very difficult issue recommend that the Senate reject this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Nick McKim, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
McKim supports the bill and says it should evacuate the remaining offshore processingThis is the system of holding asylum seekers outside Australia, mainly in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. cohort to safety in Australia until they get a durable third-country solutionThis means finding another country to take the person eventually, so Australia is only a temporary place under the bill.. He argues this is needed because offshore detention has been a humanitarian calamity that has caused serious harm and violated the duty of care owed to refugees and asylum seekers.
“The Bill is designed to evacuate those people to safety here in Australia. It will restore their human rights and dignity while improving their access and capacity to secure long-overdue durable solutions to their displacements due to war, violence, conflict, or persecution faced in their countries of origin.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
McKim supports the bill and says it is a compassionate, practical step that would bring the remaining people offshore to safety and save lives. He criticises Labor for failing to act sooner, arguing there is no real barrier to backing it.
“This bill gives Labor the chance to finish the job. It represents a compassionate and practical solution to the ongoing calamity of offshore detention. It provides a necessary step towards a durable solution for people who have been without one for nearly a decade now. It will offer people a chance at safety in Australia with the support and medical attention they need while awaiting resettlement in a safe third country. This is a critical step in ensuring that people who sought asylum in Australia and were treated so abhorrently finally get an opportunity at the dignity and respect they deserve, and a much-needed chance to rebuild their lives in safety and freedom.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I thank Senator McKim for bringing this bill to the Senate. It does have my support. A number of Canberrans contact me on a regular basis about this but not only this. There are people languishing in our community on bridging visas—people who've had small businesses for 10 years and are contributing and paying taxes but who don't have access to services, to tertiary education and all of the things that many of us take for granted. Thank you, Senator McKim. I support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (07/03/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (9 Feb 2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (7 Mar 2023)
APH bill page notes
