Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-03-21.36.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means it failed. ### What was the purpose of this amendment? Senator Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-03-21.36.1): > *This amendment simply removes section 367A from the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023, and the reason for this amendment is also simple: section 367A goes against the very principles of natural justice. Indeed, as drafted, section 367A would replace section 423A of the Migration Act, thereby maintaining a process which has always been unfair to refugees and asylum seekers. In essence, the provision would require the newly formed Administrative Review Tribunal to draw an unfavourable inference as to the credibility of the claim or evidence provided by an applicant if such information was not raised in the primary decision in circumstances where the tribunal is satisfied the applicant does not have a reasonable explanation for the delay. The provision only applies to applicants seeking a review of protection decisions, meaning it will create a disproportionate and unfair disadvantage to refugees and asylum seekers.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 2, item 170, page 68 (lines 11 to 24), omit section 367A.*
House of Representatives, 2024-03-21. negative: ayes 14, noes 48.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-03-21.36.1) introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent), which means it failed. ### What was the purpose of this amendment? Senator Wilkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-03-21.36.1): > *This amendment simply removes section 367A from the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023, and the reason for this amendment is also simple: section 367A goes against the very principles of natural justice. Indeed, as drafted, section 367A would replace section 423A of the Migration Act, thereby maintaining a process which has always been unfair to refugees and asylum seekers. In essence, the provision would require the newly formed Administrative Review Tribunal to draw an unfavourable inference as to the credibility of the claim or evidence provided by an applicant if such information was not raised in the primary decision in circumstances where the tribunal is satisfied the applicant does not have a reasonable explanation for the delay. The provision only applies to applicants seeking a review of protection decisions, meaning it will create a disproportionate and unfair disadvantage to refugees and asylum seekers.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 2, item 170, page 68 (lines 11 to 24), omit section 367A.*
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.