Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-11-30.176.1) introduced by Senator [Richard Colbeck](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/richard_colbeck), which means they were in favour of considering [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5507) quickly. In parliamentary language, the motion was: > *That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of [standing order 111](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/b00/b20) not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.* [Standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) are the rules that are followed in parliament about when to speak, when to vote, when to adjourn etc. If this motion hadn't passed, the Senate would have had to wait until the next period of sittings before they could discuss whether to pass the bill. In this case, the next sitting period would've been next year in 2016 (see the [Sitting Calendar](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Sitting_Calendar)). ### What is this bill about? **This bill relates to the policy "[For revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies/84)".** The purpose of the bill is to remove the Australian citizenship of a [dual national](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship) in certain situations, including if they fight for or serve a terrorist organisation (read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1516a/16bd015) and [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-27/citizenship-stripped-under-new-laws-explainer/6500280)).
Senate, 2015-11-30. affirmative: ayes 40, noes 11.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-11-30.176.1) introduced by Senator [Richard Colbeck](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/richard_colbeck), which means they were in favour of considering [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5507) quickly. In parliamentary language, the motion was: > *That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of [standing order 111](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/b00/b20) not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.* [Standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) are the rules that are followed in parliament about when to speak, when to vote, when to adjourn etc. If this motion hadn't passed, the Senate would have had to wait until the next period of sittings before they could discuss whether to pass the bill. In this case, the next sitting period would've been next year in 2016 (see the [Sitting Calendar](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Sitting_Calendar)). ### What is this bill about? **This bill relates to the policy "[For revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies/84)".** The purpose of the bill is to remove the Australian citizenship of a [dual national](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship) in certain situations, including if they fight for or serve a terrorist organisation (read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1516a/16bd015) and [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-27/citizenship-stripped-under-new-laws-explainer/6500280)).
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.