How Tim Ayres voted compared to someone who believes that there should be more independent access to detention centres and more information provided about the management of asylum seekers under Australian government policy, including the interception of boats at sea

Division Tim Ayres Supporters vote Division outcome

13th May 2021, 1:46 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of passing the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time. As the bill has already been passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest:

The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to clarify that the Act does not authorise the removal of a person who is found to attract Australia’s protection obligations under international law. The Bill responds to two recent Federal Court decisions which found that section 197C of the Migration Act effectively overrides Australia’s international obligations not to return a person to a country where they face persecution or a real risk of significant harm (known as non-refoulement obligations). The Federal Court has found that currently, the Migration Act requires a person who is owed such obligations but is refused a protection visa, to either be removed from Australia or released from immigration detention.

The Bill also inserts an express requirement that Australia’s protection obligations be considered before a decision is made whether to grant or refuse a protection visa.

In a nutshell, this amendment will ensure that people can continue to be detained in immigration detention if they have been refused a protection visa but cannot be returned to their own countries of origin due to Australia's international obligations of non-refoulement.

Read more about this bill in the bills digest.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

13th May 2021, 1:35 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time and can now discuss the bill in more detail.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest:

The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to clarify that the Act does not authorise the removal of a person who is found to attract Australia’s protection obligations under international law. The Bill responds to two recent Federal Court decisions which found that section 197C of the Migration Act effectively overrides Australia’s international obligations not to return a person to a country where they face persecution or a real risk of significant harm (known as non-refoulement obligations). The Federal Court has found that currently, the Migration Act requires a person who is owed such obligations but is refused a protection visa, to either be removed from Australia or released from immigration detention.

The Bill also inserts an express requirement that Australia’s protection obligations be considered before a decision is made whether to grant or refuse a protection visa.

In a nutshell, this amendment will ensure that people can continue to be detained in immigration detention if they have been refused a protection visa but cannot be returned to their own countries of origin due to Australia's international obligations of non-refoulement.

Read more about this bill in the bills digest.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

11th Nov 2019, 5:07 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019 - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to disallow the Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019. If it had been successful, that instrument would have stopped having legal force.

Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim (Greens) explained why he wanted the Instrument disallowed:

This is a classic example of scope creep by this government. Having established the unfair, punitive, unjust fast-track arrangements that have caught so many people who arrived in our country by boat seeking asylum, they now want to expand that erosion of rights and apply it to a further cohort of people. This Senate quite rightly rejected such a move by this government in the last parliament, and I call on my colleagues today to hold the line, stand up for some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged people in our community today and vote to disallow this instrument. Almost exactly a year ago, the Morrison government attempted to extend fast-track assessments to people who arrived by boat before 2014 and were already living in Australia. That expansion would have captured an extra 108 people.

I want to make one thing very clear about the fast-track process: it is neither fast nor fair. The fast-track assessment process removes access to the normal processes of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and denies people their rights to a fair review of government decisions.

Motion text

That the Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2019L00506].

Yes Yes Not passed by a small majority

How "voted 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 2 2 4
Total: 12 14

*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 = 12 / 14 = 86%.

And then