Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-16.164.14) to agree with the main idea of the bill, which is known as giving the bill a second reading. Because this vote was successful, our senators can now consider the bill in greater detail. ### What is the bill's main idea? According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r7114), this bill was introduced: > *in response to the High Court’s judgement in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor (S28/2023) to provide for certain conditions to be placed on bridging visas granted to non-citizens released from immigration detention.* According to the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7114_ems_78ddce5e-0329-4111-958d-7da135dd3666%22;rec=0) (which is a political document prepared by the Government): > *The Bill will establish new criminal offence provisions, in relation to certain conduct by non-citizens in the NZYQ affected cohort [i.e., Non-citizens released from immigration detention following the High Court judgment on 8 November 2023 in NZYQ] that constitutes a serious breach of visa conditions, relating to the failure to comply with certain requirements to notify, report to the Minister or the Department, where required to do so under certain mandatory conditions imposed on the BVR [i.e., Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa]. These offences are vital to ensuring that non-citizens in the NZYQ-affected cohort remain appropriately engaged with the Department and the Australian Border Force, and cooperate in arrangements to facilitate their removal from Australia.* > > *The new offence provisions that would provide a proportionate response in order to effect re-engagement of the non-citizen with the Department. Attempt
Senate, 2023-11-16. affirmative: ayes 32, noes 11.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-16.164.14) to agree with the main idea of the bill, which is known as giving the bill a second reading. Because this vote was successful, our senators can now consider the bill in greater detail. ### What is the bill's main idea? According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r7114), this bill was introduced: > *in response to the High Court’s judgement in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor (S28/2023) to provide for certain conditions to be placed on bridging visas granted to non-citizens released from immigration detention.* According to the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7114_ems_78ddce5e-0329-4111-958d-7da135dd3666%22;rec=0) (which is a political document prepared by the Government): > *The Bill will establish new criminal offence provisions, in relation to certain conduct by non-citizens in the NZYQ affected cohort [i.e., Non-citizens released from immigration detention following the High Court judgment on 8 November 2023 in NZYQ] that constitutes a serious breach of visa conditions, relating to the failure to comply with certain requirements to notify, report to the Minister or the Department, where required to do so under certain mandatory conditions imposed on the BVR [i.e., Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa]. These offences are vital to ensuring that non-citizens in the NZYQ-affected cohort remain appropriately engaged with the Department and the Australian Border Force, and cooperate in arrangements to facilitate their removal from Australia.* > > *The new offence provisions that would provide a proportionate response in order to effect re-engagement of the non-citizen with the Department. Attempt
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.