How Mark Dreyfus voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should give the private sector control over running and managing its services (such as public welfare and health services) by either outsourcing or privatisation

Division Mark Dreyfus Supporters vote Division outcome

11th Sep 2019, 1:14 PM – Representatives Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Stop privatisation

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to amend the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time". Agreeing to read a bill for a second time is the same as agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

Motion text

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that the Government's plan to privatise Australia's visa system will lead to:

(a) cuts to services, increased risk of visa fraud, worker exploitation, and data security breaches; and

(b) the loss of around 2,000 jobs Australia-wide; and

(2) urges the Government to stop its privatisation of Australia's visa system".

absent No Not passed by a small majority

11th Oct 2016, 6:04 PM – Representatives National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and another - Consideration in Detail - Privatisation

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Labor MP Catherine King, which means they were unsuccessful.

What are these amendments all about?

MP King explained the reasons for the amendments:

These are very important amendments. They go to the heart of Labor's concerns with the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016. This is a very serious debate we are having here in this chamber this evening. This is a debate about not only who will hold some of the most sensitive health information but the future possibilities of the private, for-profit sector in the health space ...

... The amendments I have moved very strongly say that we do not believe that we should have a for-profit company running this register. I want to make it very clear that we will be moving these amendments in the Senate as well. These are amendments that I believe the House should support because if we do not it is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to this government privatising our Medicare system.

Learn more about the bills

The two bills under discussion are the:

Together, they create a National Cancer Screening Register. Read more about them in the bills digest.

Motion text

(1) Clause 26, page 22 (line 16), omit "The Minister", substitute "(1) The Minister".

(2) Clause 26, page 22 (lines 16 and 17), omit "a person", substitute "a permitted entity".

(3) Clause 26, page 22 (line 20), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) In this section:

permitted entity means:

(a) a Department of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(b) a body (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(c) a person in the service or employment of a Department mentioned in paragraph (a) or a body mentioned in paragraph (b); or

(d) a person who holds or performs the duties of an office or position established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(e) an entity (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established for a charitable purpose.

(4) This section has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in the acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).

absent No (strong) Not passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Mark Dreyfus was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.