Senators agreed to keep schedule 1 of the bill as it was (without amendments).

Doug Cameron voted moderately for the Intervention in the Northern Territory
How Doug Cameron voted compared to someone who believes that the Federal Government should respond to reports about high levels of child sexual abuse in some Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory by introducing the Northern Territory National Emergency Response or the very similar Stronger Futures Policy, also referred to as "the intervention"
Division | Doug Cameron | Supporters vote | Division outcome |
---|---|---|---|
28th Jun 2012, 11:07 PM – Senate Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Leave schedule 1 as it isShow detail |
Yes | Yes | Passed by a modest majority |
28th Jun 2012, 2:13 AM – Senate Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 - Third Reading - Pass the billShow detailSenators voted to pass the bill. |
Yes | Yes (strong) | Passed by a modest majority |
28th Jun 2012, 12:57 AM – Senate Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Agree to Australian Greens amendments reducing sunset clause periodsShow detailSenators voted against reducing sunset clause periods from 10 to 5 years, as proposed in Australian Greens amendments 4, 17 and 20. |
No | No | Not passed by a large majority |
28th Jun 2012, 12:01 AM – Senate Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Leave schedule 2 as it isShow detailSenators agreed to keep schedule 2 of the bill as it was (without amendments). |
Yes | Yes | Passed by a large majority |
21st Jun 2011 – Senate Motions - Northern Territory Emergency Response - RepealShow detailThe majority voted against a motion moved by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, which means that it was unsuccessful. The motion was: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that it has been 4 years since the Northern Territory Emergency Response began, (ii) that investment in the program now exceeds $1.5 billion, (iii) that the Closing the Gap report indicated that incarceration rates have risen, and that school attendance and child nutrition have not improved, and (iv) the growing crisis in Alice Springs as many people move from community into Alice Springs; (b) draws attention to: (i) the statement being launched in Darwin, ' Rebuilding from the ground up – an alternative to the Northern Territory Intervention' which calls for a new approach based on principles of self-determination, community control and a commitment to land rights, and (ii) the serious concern raised by the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review and the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination over Australia's failure to eliminate discrimination; and (c) calls for: (i) the repeal of the Northern Territory Emergency Response legislation, and (ii) the development of a long-term plan in partnership with Aboriginal communities to equalise life opportunities and outcomes, backed up with a sustained investment of resources, particularly in community-based organisations. |
absent | No | Not passed by a large majority |
27th Nov 2008, 9:04 PM – Senate Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 - Third Reading - Read a third timeShow detailThe majority voted in favour of a motion That this bill be now read a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the bill and want it to pass in the Senate. The bill will now be returned to the House of Representatives for them to consider amendments agreed to in the Senate. Background to the bill In 2007, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response ('the Intervention') was introduced in response to a report called Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle Little Children are Sacred: The Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse.(Read more about the Little Children are Sacred report here. ) The intervention was controversial and has been a source of ongoing debate. This latest bill changes and removes some of the measures introduced as part of the Intervention. In summary, it:
|
No | Yes | Passed by a small majority |
27th Nov 2008, 8:52 PM – Senate Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 - In Committee - 'Must' use discretionShow detailThe majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by Senator Nigel Scullion, which means that it was successful. The amendment was: (11) Page 18 (after line 12), after Schedule 3, insert: Schedule 3A—Access to Aboriginal land Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 1 Subsection 70B(2) Omit “may” (first occurring), substitute “must”. Senator Scullion explained that this amendment "deals with the current discretion of the minister in whether or not they change regulations or impact on regulations to ensure that the permit system changes are invoked".(Read Senator Scullion's full explanation here. Read more about the permit system in the bills digest. ) Background to the bill In 2007, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response ('the Intervention') was introduced in response to a report called Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle Little Children are Sacred: The Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse.(Read more about the Little Children are Sacred report here. ) The intervention was controversial and has been a source of ongoing debate. This latest bill changes and removes some of the measures introduced as part of the Intervention. In summary, it:
|
No | Yes | Passed by a small majority |
27th Nov 2008, 7:00 PM – Senate Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 - In Committee - Keep the permit systemShow detailThe majority voted against a motion "that schedule 3 stand as printed". This means that the majority do not want schedule 3 to remain as it is. This motion was put in response to an earlier motion to oppose schedule 3, which was introduced by Country Liberal Senator Nigel Scullion. This schedule repeals most of the permit provisions introduced by the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Act 2007.(Read more about this schedule and the permit system in the bills digest. ) Background to the bill In 2007, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response ('the Intervention') was introduced in response to a report called Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle Little Children are Sacred: The Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse.(Read more about the Little Children are Sacred report here. ) The intervention was controversial and has been a source of ongoing debate. This latest bill changes and removes some of the measures introduced as part of the Intervention. In summary, it:
|
Yes | No | Not passed by a small majority |
27th Nov 2008, 5:51 PM – Senate Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 - In Committee - Exempts from discrimination lawsShow detailThe majority voted in favour of a motion "that clause 13 in schedule 1, item 10, stand as printed." In other words, the majority wanted that clause to remain unchanged. This motion was put in response to an earlier motion to oppose that clause, which was introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert.(Read Senator Siewert's explanation of her motion here. ) Clause 13 relates to the measures that prohibit certain pay television licensees from providing television channels that contain large amounts of R18+ programming to certain prescribed areas. The clause "provide explicitly that they over-ride [Northern Territory] laws dealing with discrimination".(Read more in the bills digest. ) Background to the bill In 2007, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response ('the Intervention') was introduced in response to a report called Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle Little Children are Sacred: The Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse.(Read more about the Little Children are Sacred report here. ) The intervention was controversial and has been a source of ongoing debate. This latest bill changes and removes some of the measures introduced as part of the Intervention. In summary, it:
|
Yes | Yes | Passed by a large 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 | 1 | 50 | 50 |
MP voted against policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MP absent | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Less important votes (10 points) | |||
MP voted with policy | 4 | 40 | 40 |
MP voted against policy | 3 | 0 | 30 |
Less important absentees (2 points) | |||
MP absent* | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Total: | 91 | 122 | |
*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 = 91 / 122 = 75%.
And then
- between 95% and 100% becomes "very strongly for"
- between 85% and 95% becomes "strongly for"
- between 60% and 85% becomes "moderately for"
- between 40% and 60% becomes "a mixture of for and against"
- between 15% and 40% becomes "moderately against"
- between 5.0% and 15% becomes "strongly against"
- between 0.0% and 5.0% becomes "very strongly against"