How John Williams voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should close its Nauru Regional Processing Centre and stop all Nauru-based processing of people's claims for asylum

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which John Williams could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of John Williams on this policy.

Division John Williams Supporters vote

25th Jun 2015, 5:02 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Detention of children

No Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which John Williams could have attended.

Division John Williams Supporters vote

15th Feb 2018, 11:56 AM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - End offshore detention

No Yes

20th Jun 2017, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Close Nauru and Manus Is. detention centres

No Yes

25th Jun 2015, 6:15 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

absent No

25th Jun 2015, 12:21 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree with the main idea

Yes No

16th May 2013, 12:15 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time

absent No

16th May 2013, 10:42 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Yes No

12th Sep 2012, 11:49 AM – Senate Motions - Republic of Nauru - Designate Nauru as regional processing country

absent No

16th Aug 2012, 10:21 PM – Senate Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time

Yes No

16th Aug 2012, 5:22 PM – Senate Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

absent No

How "voted consistently against" is worked out

They Vote For You gives each vote a score based on whether the MP voted in agreement with the policy or not. These scores are then averaged with a weighting across all votes that the MP could have voted on relevant to the policy. The overall average score is then converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

When an MP votes in agreement with a policy the vote is scored as 100%. When they vote against the policy it is scored as 0% and when they are absent it is scored half way between the two at 50%. The half way point effectively says "we don't know whether they are for or against this policy".

The overall agreement score for the policy is worked out by a weighted average of the scores for each vote. The weighting has been chosen so that the most important votes have a weighting 5 times that of the less important votes. Also, absent votes on less important votes are weighted 5 times less again to not penalise MPs for not attending the less important votes. Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always mean they've abstained.

Type of vote Agreement score (s) Weight (w) No of votes (n)
Most important votes MP voted with policy 100% 25 0
MP voted against policy 0% 25 1
MP absent 50% 25 0
Less important votes MP voted with policy 100% 5 0
MP voted against policy 0% 5 5
MP absent 50% 1 4

The final agreement score is a weighted average (weighted arithmetic mean) of the scores of the individual votes.

Average agreement score = sum(n×w×s) / sum(n×w) = 2.0 / 54 = 4%.

And then this average agreement score