Division
Sarah Hanson-Young Could I just seek some clarification from the Clerk as to whether we dealt with the amendments on sheet 7683 last time. I think we were halfway through that vote, from memory. The CHAIRMAN: Where we are up to is Australian Greens amendments (3) and (4), but they were actually consequential on the previous one, on which the question has been resolved. So I do not think you would want to move those. We would then be ready to go on to— Opposition amendments? The CHAIRMAN: Opposition amendments, yes—if we are following the running sheet. Kim Carr The opposition opposes schedule 2 in the following terms: (5) Schedule 2, page 10 (line 1) to page 15 (line 9), to be opposed. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to make significant changes to the way in which Australia will determine if it has protection obligations in relation to certain non-citizens. Specifically, the bill inserts a new section 6A that provides that a non-citizen is not entitled to complementary protection unless the person can prove that it is more likely than not that he or she will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia. Currently, the 'real chance' test means that a person must not be returned to a situation where there is a real chance that they would face significant harm. This means a chance which is not remote or insubstantial but which may be below 50 per cent and may be as low as 10 per cent. These changes have the potential to put vulnerable people seeking Australia's protection at risk of persecution, death or serious harm if returned to their country. While Labor notes that complementary protection applies to only a small cohort of those who apply for refugee status but are refused, they are nonetheless an important cohort. When Labor introduced the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2011, it was intended to assess and provide protection to those who do not satisfy the definition of a refugee. However, they are nonetheless provided protection on the basis
Senate, 2015-03-25. affirmative: ayes 44, noes 11.
Question
Sarah Hanson-Young Could I just seek some clarification from the Clerk as to whether we dealt with the amendments on sheet 7683 last time. I think we were halfway through that vote, from memory. The CHAIRMAN: Where we are up to is Australian Greens amendments (3) and (4), but they were actually consequential on the previous one, on which the question has been resolved. So I do not think you would want to move those. We would then be ready to go on to— Opposition amendments? The CHAIRMAN: Opposition amendments, yes—if we are following the running sheet. Kim Carr The opposition opposes schedule 2 in the following terms: (5) Schedule 2, page 10 (line 1) to page 15 (line 9), to be opposed. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to make significant changes to the way in which Australia will determine if it has protection obligations in relation to certain non-citizens. Specifically, the bill inserts a new section 6A that provides that a non-citizen is not entitled to complementary protection unless the person can prove that it is more likely than not that he or she will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia. Currently, the 'real chance' test means that a person must not be returned to a situation where there is a real chance that they would face significant harm. This means a chance which is not remote or insubstantial but which may be below 50 per cent and may be as low as 10 per cent. These changes have the potential to put vulnerable people seeking Australia's protection at risk of persecution, death or serious harm if returned to their country. While Labor notes that complementary protection applies to only a small cohort of those who apply for refugee status but are refused, they are nonetheless an important cohort. When Labor introduced the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2011, it was intended to assess and provide protection to those who do not satisfy the definition of a refugee. However, they are nonetheless provided protection on the basis
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.