How Jim Molan voted compared to someone who believes that people seeking asylum in Australia, who arrive without a visa and particularly those who arrive by boat, should be held offshore in an Australian territory like Christmas Island while their application is processed (See the policy "For regional processing of asylum seekers" for more on processing asylum claims in other countries, like Nauru)

Division Jim Molan Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Jun 2020, 4:13 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Resettlement

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against parts (c)(ii) and (d) of the motion, which means they failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) agrees that:

(i) ...

(ii) the indefinite detention of refugees, both offshore and onshore, causes trauma and harm to people who have applied for refugee status under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; and

(d) calls on the Federal Government to immediately accept the kind offer from the New Zealand government to provide resettlement to 150 people each year from Australia's offshore detention cohort.

absent No Not passed

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 Jim Molan 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.