Division
The majority [voted in favour](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2016-12-01.83.1) of passing the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5736) in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read it [for a third time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). Because the bill has already been passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law. ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd043), the bill: > *... proposes to amend the war crimes offences ... to address some anomalies in the treatment of acts done in the course of a ‘non‑international armed conflict’ with the requirements of international humanitarian law (IHL). These anomalies ... are said to limit the capability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to undertake international security operations, and may expose members of the ADF to domestic criminal liability despite acting in compliance with the requirements of IHL.* ### Why didn't the Greens support the bill? Only the senators from the Australian Greens Party voted against this bill. Tasmanian Greens Senator Nick McKim explained why during his [second reading speech](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2016-12-01.73.1). Here's part of what he said: > *I think all of us in this chamber would agree it is vitally important to make sure we are all on the same page on what constitutes a war crime in this changing environment and to make sure that our understanding is aligned with international law. Unfortunately, as we have seen so often, the government has fluffed this legislation. In particular, the Attorney-General has fluffed it, which is unsurprising, given his record of political fluffing. In seeking to provide clarity for the ADF, the government has, as it often does, gone too far. Backed by the ALP, it is proposing to weaken safeguards tha
Senate, 2016-12-01. affirmative: ayes 58, noes 8.
Question
The majority [voted in favour](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2016-12-01.83.1) of passing the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5736) in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read it [for a third time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). Because the bill has already been passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law. ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd043), the bill: > *... proposes to amend the war crimes offences ... to address some anomalies in the treatment of acts done in the course of a ‘non‑international armed conflict’ with the requirements of international humanitarian law (IHL). These anomalies ... are said to limit the capability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to undertake international security operations, and may expose members of the ADF to domestic criminal liability despite acting in compliance with the requirements of IHL.* ### Why didn't the Greens support the bill? Only the senators from the Australian Greens Party voted against this bill. Tasmanian Greens Senator Nick McKim explained why during his [second reading speech](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2016-12-01.73.1). Here's part of what he said: > *I think all of us in this chamber would agree it is vitally important to make sure we are all on the same page on what constitutes a war crime in this changing environment and to make sure that our understanding is aligned with international law. Unfortunately, as we have seen so often, the government has fluffed this legislation. In particular, the Attorney-General has fluffed it, which is unsurprising, given his record of political fluffing. In seeking to provide clarity for the ADF, the government has, as it often does, gone too far. Backed by the ALP, it is proposing to weaken safeguards tha
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.