How Peter Slipper voted compared to someone who believes that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators should vote to suspend standing and sessional orders (that is, the procedural rules of Parliament) so that their colleagues can introduce motions for Parliament to vote on even when the the procedural rules would prevent them from doing so

Division Peter Slipper Supporters vote Division outcome

26th Jun 2013, 3:24 PM – Representatives Motions - Labor Party Leadership - End Labor's internal arguments

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott. This means that it was unsuccessful.

The motion was:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion:

That this House calls on the Government to end its internal arguments and actually govern the country and if it can’t, to restore the selection of the Prime Minister to the people in an election, where it should be.

Background to the motion

The Labor Party leadership has been tumultuous since 2010, when there was a leadership spill that led to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd resigning and being replaced by Julia Gillard. This spill was followed by further spills in 2012 and March 2013, which Ms Gillard managed to win and so remain Prime Minister.

The day this motion was moved, another leadership spill is brewing. At 7pm it is called and Mr Rudd wins to become Prime Minister once more and Ms Gillard resigns.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

5th Jun 2013, 4:19 PM – Representatives Motions - National Security - Suspend standing and sessional orders

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne. However, since an absolute majority is required to suspend standing and sessional orders (as the motion attempted to do), it was unsuccessful.

The motion was:

That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question: That the suspension of standing and sessional orders be agreed to.(Read Mr Pyne's explanation of the motion and the related debate here, after 3:58 pm. )

Mr Pyne was seeking to vote on the question again because, when the division originally took place, one of the opposition members just missed out on the chance to take part in it. It was Mr Pyne's hope that, if the division is retaken, it will be successful.(See that previous division here.)

References

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

5th Jun 2013, 3:53 PM – Representatives Motions - National Security - Suspend standing and sessional orders

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Independent MP Andrew Wilkie. However, since an absolute majority is required to suspend standing and sessional orders (as the motion attempted to do), it was unsuccessful.

The motion was:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Denison moving the following motion forthwith:

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security be directed by the Minister to report by 20 June 2013 on the following:

(1) to establish all facts in relation to allegations that a convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist was in a detention centre in full knowledge of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, without passing this information to the Minister; and

(2) whether processes and/or resources need to change to address any issues raised, and if so, in detail, to recommend where.(Read Mr Wilkie's explanation of the motion and the related debate here. Read more about this incident on ABC News here.)

References

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

5th Jun 2013, 3:38 PM – Representatives Motions - National Security - Suspend standing and sessional orders

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Liberal MP Michael Keenan.

The motion was:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Stirling moving the following motion forthwith:

That the Prime Minister immediately commission a cross government review into the Government’s incompetent handling of the circumstances surrounding the placing of a convicted Egyptian jihadist terrorist in a low security family detention facility in the Adelaide Hills including:(Read Mr Keenan's explanation of the motion and the related debate here. Read more about this incident on ABC News here.)

(1) when was the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Home Affairs Minister first made aware of the presence of the Egyptian terrorist in the detention network and when did each responsible department or agency brief their Minister and the Prime Minister;

(2) the adequacy of communication arrangements and intelligence sharing between the relevant departments and agencies on matters of national security;

(3) the effects of the Governments budget cuts on our national security agencies ability to detect such cases particularly the $6.9 million cut to ASIO’s budget for security screening of asylum seekers; and

(4) a review of any similar cases including those of a Sri Lankan man accused of murder who was released into the community on a bridging visa and an accused Iranian drug smuggler.

References

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

3rd Jun 2013, 3:37 PM – Representatives Motions - National Security - Suspend standing and sessional orders

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Liberal MP Scott Morrison. However, since an absolute majority is required to suspend standing and sessional orders (as the motion attempted to do), it was unsuccessful.

The motion was:(Read Mr Morrison's whole explanation of his motion and the related debate here. )

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as to allow the member for Cook to move the following motion:

That given the Government’s refusal to answer questions in this House and their refusal to establish an independent inquiry into the Government’s ‘light touch’ handling of national security issues regarding the detention and processing of a convicted terrorist who arrived illegally by boat in and around May 2012 that:(Read more about this incident on ABC News here.)

(1) a Select Committee on the ‘National security issues relating to the processing and detention of a convicted terrorist who arrived by boat in and around May 2012 and other related matters involving the Government’s handling of national security issues for irregular maritime arrivals’ be appointed to inquire into and report on, having regard to the following circumstances,:

(a) in or around May 2012, an Egyptian adult male accompanied by his family arrived illegally by boat at Christmas Island claiming asylum. After initial processing the man and family were transferred to the Inverbrackie Alternative Place of Detention, a detention facility for low risk asylum seeker families in the Adelaide Hills;

(b) by end August 2012 it was established by ASIO that this man was convicted of multiple terrorist offences, a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which merged with Al Qaeda in June 2001. He was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice; and

(c) the man and family remained in low security detention at Inverbrackie until April 2013 when they were transferred to higher security detention facilities at Villawood in Sydney;

(2) the Select Committee should:

(a) establish the facts surrounding the case in relation to:

(i) the full chronology of the events relating to the man and his family’s arrival and detention in Australia and associated security and criminal investigations;

(ii) how and when relevant agencies and Ministers became aware of the man’s terrorist conviction and what action was taken in response to that knowledge;

(iii) the adequacy of interagency co-operation, and in particular co-operation between DIAC, ASIO and the AFP, in identifying, sharing information, and taking steps to appropriately deal with the individual concerned;

(iv) why the individual was left so long at the Inverbrackie low security facility before being transferred to Villawood;

(v) the current location and security arrangements for the man and family;

(vi) the current status of immigration processing of his asylum or any other claim; and

(vii) action being taken in relation to his extradition to Egypt and the point of responsibility for ongoing management of this national security case;

(b) review the facts and make an assessment of any failings in the Government’s handling of this case and who will be responsible;

(c) identify and establish the facts relating to the Government’s handling of other cases, involving national security issues including, but not restricted to:

(i) a Sri Lankan national suspected of murder who was released into the community before being taken to Villawood detention centre;

(ii) a suspected Iranian drug smuggler who arrived via boat and is now in a mental health facility;

(iii) asylum seeker claims involving membership of the group the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; and

(iv) any other asylum seeker claim that has received a negative ASIO security assessment; and

(d) make recommendations to address issues identified in the review;

(3) the committee consist of seven members, three members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one non-aligned member;

(4) the committee may supplement its membership by up to four members, with a maximum of two extra government and two extra opposition or non-aligned members. Supplementary members shall have the same participatory rights as other members, but may not vote;

(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(6) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(7) the committee elect a government or a non-government member as chair at its first meeting;

(8) the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one government member and one non-government member;

(11) the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;

(12) the committee appoint the chair of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to act as chair at that meeting;

(13) two members of a sub-committee constitute the quorum of that sub-committee;

(14) members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(15) the committee or any sub-committee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(16) the committee or any sub-committee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(17) the committee or any sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representative;

(18) the committee may report from time to time but that it present its final report no later than 30 June 2013; and

(19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

References

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

15th May 2013, 5:34 PM – Representatives Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Recommital on Opposition amendments

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Labor MP Anthony Albanese. The motion was: "That in accordance with standing order 132, standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the House to divide again on the question viz.: That the Opposition amendments be agreed to."

That earlier division took place when some members were not in the House.(The earlier division on Opposition amendments is available here. ) This meant that the Opposition was able to form a majority to pass their amendments. Mr Albanese brought this motion to take advantage of parliamentary reform that occurred as a result of the 2010 election, when neither major party formed a clear majority. This reform introduced standing order 132, which allows a recommittal if a member inadvertently misses a division.(Read more about these reforms here. )

Because an absolute majority agreed with this motion, a second division on whether to agree with the Opposition amendments will be made.(See the second division on Opposition amendments here. )

One member, Liberal MP Luke Simpkins, rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our FAQ Section. )

Background to the Bill

The Bill is the fourth and final legislative bundle implementing the Stronger Super reforms announced by the Labor Government in 2010.(More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found here.) It introduces a number of corporate governance measures that arose out of the Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia’s Superannuation System (known as the Cooper Review) and the Government’s own consultations with industry, employer and consumer groups.

References

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "voted moderately for" is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes Points Out of
Most important votes (50 points)      
MP voted with policy 18 900 900
MP voted against policy 2 0 100
MP absent 4 100 200
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 1000 1200

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 1000 / 1200 = 83%.

And then