Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-12-11.25.10) to read the bill a [second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html). This means that the majority of members agree with the main idea in the bill, which is to remove complementary protection as a ground for the grant of a protection visa.(Read more about complementary protection in Australia [here](http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61a-complementary.htm). ) _Background to the bill_ Complementary protection was added as a new ground on which a protection visa can be granted by the _Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2011_. The term 'complementary protection' is used to describe a category of protection for people who are not refugees but who still face some real risk that will suffer particular harm if returned to their home country.(More information about this bill and its background is available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2990767/upload_binary/2990767.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). ) Australia's [non-refoulement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement) obligation, which is the obligation to not return such people to their home countries, arises expressly or impliedly from the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights) (ICCPR), the [Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture) (CAT) and the [Convention on the Rights of the Child](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child) (CROC) to which Australia is a party. This bill removes 'complementary protection' as a ground for protection visas. Instead, Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the CAT and the ICCPR will be considered through an administrative process, as was the case prior
House of Representatives, 2013-12-11. affirmative: ayes 85, noes 53.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-12-11.25.10) to read the bill a [second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/making_law.html). This means that the majority of members agree with the main idea in the bill, which is to remove complementary protection as a ground for the grant of a protection visa.(Read more about complementary protection in Australia [here](http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61a-complementary.htm). ) _Background to the bill_ Complementary protection was added as a new ground on which a protection visa can be granted by the _Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2011_. The term 'complementary protection' is used to describe a category of protection for people who are not refugees but who still face some real risk that will suffer particular harm if returned to their home country.(More information about this bill and its background is available [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2990767/upload_binary/2990767.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). ) Australia's [non-refoulement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement) obligation, which is the obligation to not return such people to their home countries, arises expressly or impliedly from the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights) (ICCPR), the [Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture) (CAT) and the [Convention on the Rights of the Child](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child) (CROC) to which Australia is a party. This bill removes 'complementary protection' as a ground for protection visas. Instead, Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the CAT and the ICCPR will be considered through an administrative process, as was the case prior
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.