Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-05-13.82.1) introduced by the Australian Greens, which means it failed. ### Amendment text > *(2) Schedule 1, [item 3F](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6696_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6696_third-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0), page 8 (lines 23 and 24), to be opposed.* ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd063): > *The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to clarify that the Act does not authorise the removal of a person who is found to attract Australia’s protection obligations under international law. The Bill responds to two recent Federal Court decisions which found that section 197C of the Migration Act effectively overrides Australia’s international obligations not to return a person to a country where they face persecution or a real risk of significant harm (known as non-refoulement obligations). The Federal Court has found that currently, the Migration Act requires a person who is owed such obligations but is refused a protection visa, to either be removed from Australia or released from immigration detention.* > > *The Bill also inserts an express requirement that Australia’s protection obligations be considered before a decision is made whether to grant or refuse a protection visa.* In a nutshell, this amendment will ensure that people can continue to be detained in immigration detention if they have been refused a protection visa but cannot be returned to their own countries of origin due to Australia's international obligations of [non-refoulement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement). Read more about this bill in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliam
Senate, 2021-05-13. affirmative: ayes 33, noes 9.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-05-13.82.1) introduced by the Australian Greens, which means it failed. ### Amendment text > *(2) Schedule 1, [item 3F](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6696_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6696_third-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0), page 8 (lines 23 and 24), to be opposed.* ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd063): > *The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to clarify that the Act does not authorise the removal of a person who is found to attract Australia’s protection obligations under international law. The Bill responds to two recent Federal Court decisions which found that section 197C of the Migration Act effectively overrides Australia’s international obligations not to return a person to a country where they face persecution or a real risk of significant harm (known as non-refoulement obligations). The Federal Court has found that currently, the Migration Act requires a person who is owed such obligations but is refused a protection visa, to either be removed from Australia or released from immigration detention.* > > *The Bill also inserts an express requirement that Australia’s protection obligations be considered before a decision is made whether to grant or refuse a protection visa.* In a nutshell, this amendment will ensure that people can continue to be detained in immigration detention if they have been refused a protection visa but cannot be returned to their own countries of origin due to Australia's international obligations of [non-refoulement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement). Read more about this bill in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliam
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.