Photo of Kerry Nettle

Kerry Nettle voted very strongly for increasing availability of abortion drugs

How Kerry Nettle voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase the availability of RU486 and other medications that can induce an abortion

Division Kerry Nettle Supporters vote Division outcome

9th Feb 2006, 4:49 PM – Senate Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - Third Reading - Read a third time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree to pass the bill in the Senate and that it will now be sent to the House of Representatives for their consideration.

This division was a conscience vote, meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of RU486 from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import abortifacients such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its bills digest (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available here.)

 Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

9th Feb 2006, 4:25 PM – Senate Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - In Committee - Amend the current process

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Senator Richard Colbeck and Senator Nigel Scullion, which means that it was unsuccessful.

This amendment opposes the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendment would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Colbeck explained that "as elected representatives we should have some oversight of that process".(Read Senator Colbeck's full explanation and the associated debate here, after 4:11 pm. )

This division was a conscience vote, meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of RU486 from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import abortifacients such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its bills digest (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available here.)

 No No Not passed by a small majority

9th Feb 2006, 4:07 PM – Senate Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - In Committee - Amend the current process

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Senator Guy Barnett and Senator Gary Humphries, which means they were unsuccessful.

These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".(Read his full explanation and the related debate here, following 3:46 pm. )

This division was a conscience vote, meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of RU486 from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import abortifacients such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its bills digest (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available here.)

 No No Not passed by a small majority

9th Feb 2006, 12:54 PM – Senate Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that they can now discuss it in more detail.

This division was a conscience vote, meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of RU486 from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import abortifacients such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its bills digest (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available here.)

 Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small 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 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 120 120

*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 = 120 / 120 = 100%.

And then