Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-11-20.60.1) to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill a second time. ### What does the bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd031) (which is a document prepared by the parliamentary jargon): > * *The Migration Amendment Bill 2024 (the Bill) will amend the Migration Act 1958 to introduce new measures for removing certain non-citizens from Australia. This includes enabling the Government to take actions regarding ‘third country reception arrangements’ to facilitate the removal of non-citizens to a foreign country.* > > * *The Bill is set in the context of the High Court of Australia’s judgment in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, which found that indefinite immigration detention was unconstitutional because it was punitive.* > > * *The Bill introduces measures to support the removal arrangements, some of which, including immunity protections for the Commonwealth and broad powers to collect and disclose information, will extend beyond the ‘NZYQ cohort’.* > > * *The Bill also responds to the decision of the High Court in YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs regarding the unconstitutionality of imposing curfew and electronic monitoring conditions on Bridging (Removal Pending) visa holders, also finding this was punitive. The Bill introduces a new test which the Minister must apply before such conditions are imposed.* > > * *Commentary from legal experts questions whether the test regarding the imposition of the conditions resolves the matter of unconstitutionality, and suggests the legislation will be challenged.* > > * *Noting commentary on the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, which also responded to NZYQ, stakeholders are likely to raise significant o
House of Representatives, 2024-11-20. affirmative: ayes 50, noes 9.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2024-11-20.60.1) to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill a second time. ### What does the bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd031) (which is a document prepared by the parliamentary jargon): > * *The Migration Amendment Bill 2024 (the Bill) will amend the Migration Act 1958 to introduce new measures for removing certain non-citizens from Australia. This includes enabling the Government to take actions regarding ‘third country reception arrangements’ to facilitate the removal of non-citizens to a foreign country.* > > * *The Bill is set in the context of the High Court of Australia’s judgment in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, which found that indefinite immigration detention was unconstitutional because it was punitive.* > > * *The Bill introduces measures to support the removal arrangements, some of which, including immunity protections for the Commonwealth and broad powers to collect and disclose information, will extend beyond the ‘NZYQ cohort’.* > > * *The Bill also responds to the decision of the High Court in YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs regarding the unconstitutionality of imposing curfew and electronic monitoring conditions on Bridging (Removal Pending) visa holders, also finding this was punitive. The Bill introduces a new test which the Minister must apply before such conditions are imposed.* > > * *Commentary from legal experts questions whether the test regarding the imposition of the conditions resolves the matter of unconstitutionality, and suggests the legislation will be challenged.* > > * *Noting commentary on the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, which also responded to NZYQ, stakeholders are likely to raise significant o
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.