Division
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-05-13.84.1) introduced by the Australian Greens, which means they failed. ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, [items 2 to 3D](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 4 (line 8) to page 8 (line 18), omit the items, substitute:* > >> *2 Section 197C* >> >> *Repeal the section.* > > *(3) Schedule 1, [item 4](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 9 (lines 1 to 3), omit subitem (3).* ### 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 p
Senate, 2021-05-13. negative: ayes 9, noes 33.
Question
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-05-13.84.1) introduced by the Australian Greens, which means they failed. ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, [items 2 to 3D](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 4 (line 8) to page 8 (line 18), omit the items, substitute:* > >> *2 Section 197C* >> >> *Repeal the section.* > > *(3) Schedule 1, [item 4](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 9 (lines 1 to 3), omit subitem (3).* ### 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 p
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.