How Ewen Jones voted compared to someone who believes that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators should vote to speed things along by supporting motions to 'put the question' (known as 'closure' or 'gag' motions), which require Parliament to immediately vote on a question rather than debating it any further

Division Ewen Jones Supporters vote Division outcome

5th May 2016, 11:26 AM – Representatives Motions - Budget - Put the motion

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to end debate by immediately voting on the question. This means that there won't be any more discussion or debate.

Motion text

That the motion be put.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Jun 2015, 8:05 PM – Representatives Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Ask the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, meaning that the discussion about the bill will now end and the House will now vote on whether they agree with the main idea of the bill (that is, whether to give the bill a second reading).

Main idea of the bill

The bill amends the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme by, for example, reducing the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) and replacing the requirement for two-yearly reviews of the operation of the RET scheme with annual statements by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER). Further detail is available in the bills digest.

What happened next?

When the question was put, all Members of Parliament (MPs) except Mr Bob Katter and Mr Andrew Wilkie agreed to the bill's main idea.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

22nd Oct 2014, 5:00 PM – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - End debate on bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted for ending the debate on the bill's main idea so the members will now be asked whether they agree with it straight away without any more talk. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

Bill's main idea

The bill's main idea is to speed up the management of asylum seekers' claims and support the Government's policies that stop asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat (for example, by intercepting the boats and turning them around). It also re-introduces temporary protection visas "because the Government is of the view that those who arrive by boat without a valid visa should not be rewarded with permanent protection" (see the bills digest)

Human rights issues

Some of the changes made by the bill may go against Australia's international law obligations. Particularly Australia's non-refoulement obligations, which stop Australia from sending people to places where their lives or freedoms are threatened. Australia has these obligations because it signed up to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture.

For example, the bill will insert a provision into the Migration Act 1958 that says that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are not relevant to removing people who are not citizens and don't have a visa. The bills digest explains that this change would mean courts won't be able to stop the Government from removing people just because it is against Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. In other words, the Government wants to decide how to apply those obligations by itself, without any potential judicial oversight.

For more about which changes may go against these obligations and how, see the bills digest.

Background to the bill

The title of the bill says it is about "resolving the asylum legacy caseload". This refers to the asylum claims made by asylum seekers who arrived by boat without a visa between August 2012 and December 2013 and who have not been sent to be processed on Nauru or Manus Island. The Coalition Government says this caseload of asylum claims is the result of the previous Labor Government's policies.

During the 2013 election campaign, the Coalition said it would address this caseload and the changes made in this bill are part of their effort to do this.

More information on the background to the bill is in the bills digest.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

4th Sep 2014, 12:34 PM – Representatives Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - End debate on bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority agreed to end debate on the bill's main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they agreed to put the question). This means that the House will now vote on whether they agree with the main idea without further delay (see that division).

Main idea of the bill

The main idea of the bill is to introduce broad ranging changes to the higher education sector, including the three changes mentioned below.

1. Deregulating university fees

One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is that it will remove any restrictions on the amount that universities can charge students for tuition in Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs). It is not known how much tuition fees would rise if this bill is passed and becomes law (read more in the bills digest).

2. Indexing HECS-HELP debt by ten year bond rate

The bill will also introduce new indexation arrangements for Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) debts (also known as HECS-HELP debts). Currently, these debts are indexed by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The bill proposes to index them by the generally higher ten year bond rate, with a cap at 6%.

3. Charging fees for postgraduate research degrees

Currently, postgraduate students in research degrees don't have to pay any tuition costs. The bill will allow universities to charge these students fees of up to $3,900 per unit for high-cost courses and $1,700 for low-cost courses.

Background to the bill

As part of its 2014-15 Budget, Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Government has announced a series of changes to government funding arrangements and this bill is part of those changes (read more in the bills digest).

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Sep 2014, 6:15 PM – Representatives Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014 — Consideration of Senate Message — Put the question (agree to the amendments)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. This type of motion has the effect of ending debate by immediately putting the question under discussion. The question referred to was whether the amendments made in the Senate should be agreed to, which was subsequently put.(See the division on whether to agree to the amendments here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

1st Sep 2014, 1:57 PM – Representatives Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014 — Third Reading — Put the question (read a third time)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that "the motion be put", which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. Mr Ciobo put this motion to end the third reading debate by immediately putting the question of whether to read the bill for a third time and therefore pass it in the House of Representatives.(See the division on whether to read the bill for a third time here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

1st Sep 2014, 1:50 PM – Representatives Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014 — Consideration in Detail — Put the question (agree to the bill)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. This motion has the effect of ending the consideration in detail stage of the debate and immediately put the question of whether the bill should be agreed to.(See the division on whether to agree to the bill here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

1st Sep 2014, 1:36 PM – Representatives Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014 — Consideration in Detail — Put the question (suspend standing orders)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. The question referred to was a motion introduced by Labor MP Chris Bowen and was subsequently put.(See the division on Mr Bowen's motion here.)

Mr Ciobo's motion has the effect of ending debate on Mr Bowen's motion by immediately putting it.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

26th Aug 2014 – Representatives Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 — Consideration of Senate Message — Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put", which was introduced by Parliamentary Secretary Alan Tudge. This motion ended debate on the question by immediately putting it to the House.(See that division here. )

In this case, the question was whether "consideration of the message be made an order of the day for a later hour this day." This "message" was from the Senate and stated that the Senate insisted on the amendments it had made previously to the bill. The House must decide whether to agree to these amendments and therefore pass the bill or reject the amendments, which means the bill will fail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must go through to become law here. )

Background to the bills

The Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 and the related Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 were introduced to create the Asset Recycling Fund ('ARF').

The ARF is the fund from which grants to states and territories will be sourced under the Asset Recycling Initiative ('ARI'), which was developed to assist states to privatise assets and to speed up the construction of transport infrastructure in capital cities.(Read the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's comments on the initiative on ABC's PM program here. ) Under the ARI, states and territories will be encouraged to sell assets, including transport infrastructure, and use the proceeds to fund new public infrastructure. By way of encouragement, the Commonwealth will provide a financial contribution of 15 per cent of the asset value of the sale that is used to fund the new infrastructure.(See the bills digest for more information. )

The Council of Australian Governments voted in favour of the ARI on 2 May 2014.(Read more about COAG's decision to agree with the ARI on ABC News here.)

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

16th Jul 2014, 6:32 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Third Reading — Put the question (to read a third time)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the third reading debate on the bill. The question was whether to read the bill for a third time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

  • increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
  • increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

16th Jul 2014, 6:22 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Third Reading — Put the question (to suspend standing orders)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the third reading debate on the bill. The question was "that the motion to suspend so much of the standing orders as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay". That motion was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

  • increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
  • increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

16th Jul 2014, 5:59 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Consideration in Detail — Put the question (to agree to the bill)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the consideration in detail debate on the bill. The question was whether to agree to the bill (read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here), which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

  • increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
  • increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

16th Jul 2014, 4:23 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Second Reading — Put the question (to read a second time)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the second reading debate on the bill. The question was whether to read the bill for a second time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

  • increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
  • increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
  • increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

14th Jul 2014, 5:41 PM – Representatives Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills - Consideration in Detail - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that "The questions be now put", which was put by Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt. This means that the House will stop discussing the bills in detail and will now vote on the amendments that have been proposed.

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.(See that division here. ) The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.(See that division here. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News here or on the World Today here.)

The bills included in this package are the following:

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

14th Jul 2014, 5:03 PM – Representatives Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills — Second Reading — Put the Greens amendment

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put", which means that the House will stop discussing the bills in detail and will now vote on the question proposed, which was whether an amendment introduced by Greens MP Adam Bandt be agreed to. This question was subsequently put without division because there are fewer than five members on the side of the 'ayes' when the vote was put.(Read more about why a division does not always take place in our FAQ Section here.)

The amendment would have amended the original motion "that the bills be read a second time" with the following:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:

(1) notes that:

(a) the world is on track for 4 degrees of warming; and

(b) warming of less than 1 degree is already intensifying extreme weather events in Australia and around the world with enormous costs to life and property; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) protect the Australian people and environment from climate change by approving no new coal mines or extensions of existing mines, or new coal export terminals; and

(b) adopt a trajectory of 40-60% below 2000 levels by 2030 and net carbon zero by 2050 emissions reduction target in global negotiations for a 2015 treaty."

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.(See that division here. ) The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.(See that division here. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News here or on the World Today here.)

The bills included in this package are the following:

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2014, 6:39 PM – Representatives Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - End debate on whether to criticise the Government's climate change policies

Show detail

The majority voted to end the debate on Labor MP Mark Butler's statement, which criticised the Government's climate change policies. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

This means that the members of parliament (MPs) will now immediately vote on whether they agree with Butler's statement without further debate (see that division).

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

6th Mar 2014, 12:31 PM – Representatives Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 - Third Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to was that the bill be read a third time, which was subsequently put.(See this division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

6th Mar 2014, 12:20 PM – Representatives Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 - Third Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to was a motion introduced by MP Pyne 'that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.' This motion was subsequently put.(See this division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

6th Mar 2014, 11:52 AM – Representatives Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 - Consideration in Detail - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question was that the bill be agreed to and was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

6th Mar 2014, 11:33 AM – Representatives Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to is whether to read the bill for a second time, which was subsequently put.(See the division for that motion here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

9th Dec 2013, 5:54 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration of Senate Message - Put the question re: removing the debt limit

Show detail

The majority voted in favour a motion to put the question, which means that it can now be voted on.

The question was that the further Greens amendments be agreed to.(A copy of the Greens amendments is available here. ) This question was subsequently voted on and agreed to without division, which means that the House agrees with the Senate that the debt limit should be removed altogether.

Background to Bill

On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media here. ) This was following the August 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.

The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the explanatory memorandum (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available here.)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

9th Dec 2013, 4:59 PM – Representatives Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration of Senate Message - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put.

This means that the question can now be put, which is that the requested amendment be made.(See that division here. )

Background to Bill

On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media here. ) This was following the August 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.

The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the explanatory memorandum (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available here.)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

21st Nov 2013 – Representatives Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 - Motion to Dissent from Ruling - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted for a motion that the question be now put. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.

The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP Tony Burke that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

Background to the Motion

The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's website. ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this fact sheet.)

The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

27th Jun 2013, 12:50 PM – Representatives Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question should be put. The question referred to was whether to agree to the bill as amended and was subsequently put.(That division is available here. )

Background to the Bill

The Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 was introduced by Labor MP Brendan O'Connor to “enhance the government's ability to deter sponsor behaviour which is inconsistent with the policy intent of the subclass 457 visa program and other temporary employer sponsored visa programs”.(Read MP O'Connor's comments here. ) At the time this bill was introduced, the 457 visa program was receiving extensive media attention with claims that it was being misused.(See ABC News. A simple explanation of the 457 visa scheme can be found on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s website here.)

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

27th Jun 2012, 6:42 PM – Representatives Migration Legislation Amendment (The Bali Process) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Put the question

Show detail

This division relates to the Policy For refugee and protection international conventions.

The majority voted in favour a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Labor MP Anthony Albanese. The question in this case was that previously moved Liberal amendments be agreed to.(That division is available here. )

This motion is a parliamentary procedure. When the question is put, debate stops and a division is called. This means that moving that the question be put can effectively put an end to debate. Someone who votes aye in support of this division is voting in favour of ending debate on the amendments.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced by Independent MP Rob Oakeshott in response to the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's Malaysia Solution policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia here and on ABC News here. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution here. )

To this end, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country to assess their refugee claims.(More information about this bill and context can be found here.) It also amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia. However, these amendments would only have effect for a period of 12 months.

By making these amendments, the bill attempts to codify the Bali Process into domestic law.

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "voted strongly 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 22 1100 1100
MP voted against policy 2 0 100
MP absent 1 25 50
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: 1125 1250

*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 = 1125 / 1250 = 90%.

And then