How Anthony Chisholm voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should issue instructions for border protection forces to turn back boats carrying asylum seekers to Australia where it is safe to do so

Division Anthony Chisholm Supporters vote Division outcome

29th Mar 2017 – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - End detention on Nauru and Manus Island

Show detail

The majority rejected a motion that called for an end to immigration detention on Nauru and Manus Island, which means it wasn't passed. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim (Tas).

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia's offshore processing is a deliberately cruel policy that has created a humanitarian crisis,

(ii) men, women and children who have sought asylum have suffered immeasurable harm at Australia's hands, including death, psychological trauma and serious injuries,

(iii) the former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Mr Juan Mendez, concluded Australia had "violated the right of the asylum seekers, including children, to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment",

(iv) Amnesty International says the Nauru detention centre was "explicitly designed to inflict incalculable damage on hundreds of women, men and children",

(v) indefinite offshore detention has led to global condemnation and a lowering of Australia's international standing,

(vi) despite the Manus Island processing centre being declared illegal by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in April 2016, the Australian Government has failed to resettle people in its care and forcibly deported an unknown number of people from Papua New Guinea,

(vii) the Department of Immigration and Border Protection says the cost of establishing and running offshore detention has exceeded $4.4 billion since 2013,

(viii) the Australian National Audit Office found that it costs $573,000 per person per year to keep people locked up in offshore detention,

(ix) despite the massive human and financial cost of this policy, that boats carrying people seeking asylum continue to attempt to reach Australia,

(x) many of these asylum seekers have been turned around to meet an unknown fate at sea or potentially refouled, contrary to Australia's international legal and moral obligations, and

(xi) despite the Australian Government's so-called "deal" with the United States, no one has been resettled in that country; and

(b) calls on the Government to end offshore detention, and bring every man woman and child, detained on Papua New Guinea and Nauru, to Australia.

No No Not passed by a large 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 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* 0 0 0
Total: 10 10

*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 = 10 / 10 = 100%.

And then