Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-06-25.11.2) to "*exempt this bill from the [bills cut-off](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so111) order*". If this motion hadn't been successful, the Senate would have had to wait until the next sitting period in order to consider this bill. Read more about bills cut-off orders in [Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/~/link.aspx?_id=49DC5DA705D1472F95440FDF517201FA&_z=z). Liberal Senator [Mitch Fifield](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/mitch_fifield) (Vic) [explained](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-06-25.11.2) the Coalition were seeking this: > *As I indicated in my contribution on the motion relating to hours, the offshore processing arrangements are central to the government's efforts to protect our borders. We place a very high premium as a government on the protection of our borders. We are seeking exemption from the cut-off in order to enable this legislation to be debated and resolved today. The government is clearly of the view that it is important to that it is important to ensure certainty and a robust legislative basis for offshore processing. In seeking to move exemption from the cut-off, we are not attempting to do anything other than what has frequently been done in this place for bills which are time critical.* ### Motion text > *That a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.* ### What does the bill do? According to its [parliamentary website](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5491), the bill: > *Amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect
Senate, 2015-06-25. affirmative: ayes 42, noes 11.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-06-25.11.2) to "*exempt this bill from the [bills cut-off](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so111) order*". If this motion hadn't been successful, the Senate would have had to wait until the next sitting period in order to consider this bill. Read more about bills cut-off orders in [Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/~/link.aspx?_id=49DC5DA705D1472F95440FDF517201FA&_z=z). Liberal Senator [Mitch Fifield](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/mitch_fifield) (Vic) [explained](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2015-06-25.11.2) the Coalition were seeking this: > *As I indicated in my contribution on the motion relating to hours, the offshore processing arrangements are central to the government's efforts to protect our borders. We place a very high premium as a government on the protection of our borders. We are seeking exemption from the cut-off in order to enable this legislation to be debated and resolved today. The government is clearly of the view that it is important to that it is important to ensure certainty and a robust legislative basis for offshore processing. In seeking to move exemption from the cut-off, we are not attempting to do anything other than what has frequently been done in this place for bills which are time critical.* ### Motion text > *That a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.* ### What does the bill do? According to its [parliamentary website](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5491), the bill: > *Amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect
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.