How Katy Gallagher voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation to increase the powers of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to intercept and retain communications related to persons of interest. These agencies include the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

Division Katy Gallagher Supporters vote Division outcome

8th Nov 2016, 7:24 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted to support the main idea of the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against giving the bill a second reading.

This means that the Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill:

is the latest in a series of reforms to national security and counter-terrorism laws since mid-2014. The Government states the Bill would address issues that have come to light through recent counter-terrorism investigations and operational activity.

A key part of the bill relates to control orders. For example, the bill would lower the minimum age that a control order can be imposed from 16 to 14 years of age. It would also introduce new ‘monitoring powers’ to:

allow police to use entry, search and seizure, telecommunications interception and surveillance device powers in relation to a person subject to a control order to monitor their compliance with the order and prevent terrorist related conduct

A concerning part of the bill relates to procedural fairness and will:

allow courts to consider information that is not disclosed to the person subject to a control order or their representative for security reasons, in control order proceedings ... and introduce a system of special advocates to represent the interests of those people in proceedings from which they and their legal representatives have been excluded ...

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a modest majority

16th Jun 2015, 4:18 PM – Senate Motions — Unlawful Bulk Data Collection — Recognise Edward Snowden's work

Show detail

The majority of senators voted against the following motion by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  • (i) the United States (US) Court of Appeals ruled in May 2015 That the bulk collection of telecommunications metadata by US Government agencies was unlawful, and

  • (ii) this case was filed following revelations by Mr Edward Snowden disclosing the scope of US Government surveillance programs; and

(b) recognises:

  • (i) the critical work that Mr Snowden has carried out in exposing unlawful surveillance programs in the US and its 'Five Eyes' allies, and

  • (ii) that Australians and the global community have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of government electronic surveillance programs.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

26th Mar 2015 – Senate Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority of Senators agreed to pass this bill which requires telecommunications service providers to retain for two years telecommunications metadata on all of their subscribers.

More information is available in the following news articles:

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a modest majority

How "voted very 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 2 100 100
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 3 30 30
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 131 132

*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 = 131 / 132 = 99%.

And then