How Concetta Fierravanti-Wells voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should protect the right of its citizens to protest against its laws, policies and decisions

Division Concetta Fierravanti-Wells Supporters vote Division outcome

28th Jun 2018, 6:25 PM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Freedom of speech

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim, which means they failed.

The amendments would have added a number of defences to the bill that relate to freedom of speech, the public interest, artistic expression and the right to protest.

What does this bill do?

This bill was introduced to:

  • amend existing, and introduce new, espionage offences relating to a broad range of dealings with information, including solicitation and preparation and planning offences;
  • introduce new offences relating to foreign interference with Australia’s political, governmental or democratic processes;
  • replace the existing sabotage offence with new sabotage offences relating to conduct causing damage to a broad range of critical infrastructure that could prejudice Australia’s national security;
  • introduce a new offence relating to theft of trade secrets on behalf of a foreign government;
  • amend existing, and introduce new, offences relating to treason and other threats to national security, such as interference with Australian democratic or political rights by conduct involving the use of force, violence or intimidation; and
  • introduce a new aggravated offence where a person provides false or misleading information relating to an application for, or maintenance of, an Australian Government security clearance.

Read more in the bills digest.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

8th Feb 2006, 12:08 PM – Senate Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2005 [2006] — In Committee - Protest

Show detail

The majority voted to keep certain items (schedule 2, item 5 and schedule 3, item 3) in the bill unchanged.

This vote happened after Greens Senator Bob Brown moved the following:

(1) Schedule 2, item 5, page 26 (lines 11 to 25), TO BE OPPOSED.

(2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 31 (line 30) to page 32 (line 13), TO BE OPPOSED.

This means that Senator Brown wanted the Senate to reject these items. However, he was unsuccessful and the items remained unchanged.

What were the items that Senator Brown opposed?

Senator Brown explained that he opposed the two items because they would mean that:

... the Chief of the Defence Force, acting on the direction of the Prime Minister, can intervene on a protest by Australians where he or she thinks there is a reasonable chance of serious damage to property. In other words, the Prime Minister can have the Chief of the Defence Force send troops into action against Australians who are protesting on any account.

Text of Schedule 2, item 5:

Insert:

(2A) Despite subsection (1), in exercising powers under Division 2A, a member of the Defence Force must not, in using force against a person:

(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, the person unless the member believes on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to:

(i) protect the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the member); or

(ii) protect, against the threat concerned, the designated critical infrastructure in respect of which the powers are being exercised; or

(b) subject the person to greater indignity than is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

Text of Schedule 3, item 3:

Insert:

(2B) Despite subsection (1), in exercising powers under subparagraph 51SE(1)(a)(i) or (ii) or Division 3B, a member of the Defence Force must not, in using force against a person or thing, do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, the person unless the member believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) doing that thing is necessary to protect the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the member); or

(b) doing that thing is necessary to protect designated critical infrastructure against a threat of damage or disruption to its operation; or

(c) doing that thing is necessary and reasonable to give effect to the order under which, or under the authority of which, the member is acting.

Learn more about the bill

See the bills digest for more information about the bill.

Yes No (strong) Passed by a large majority

How "voted very strongly against" 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 2 0 100
MP absent 0 0 0
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: 0 100

*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 = 0 / 100 = 0.0%.

And then