How Anthony Chisholm voted compared to someone who believes that there should be more scrutiny or oversight of the actions and powers of Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP)

Division Anthony Chisholm Supporters vote Division outcome

5th Dec 2019, 4:45 PM – Senate Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2019 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of agreeing to the remaining stages of the bill, which means it passed. Since the bill had already been passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced in order to:

  • respond to concern about the validity of certain ACIC determinations and other documents raised in the case of CXXXVIII v Commonwealth by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and
  • amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.

Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties like the Centre Alliance were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

5th Dec 2019, 4:42 PM – Senate Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2019 - Third Reading - Retroactive application

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to keep subitem (2) of item 53 and items 54 to 56 of schedule 1 stand as printed, which is parliamentary jargon for keeping those items unchanged. This motion was put after the Centre Alliance moved that those items should be opposed.

The items listed above relate to the retroactive aspects of the bill (see information below).

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced in order to:

  • respond to concern about the validity of certain ACIC determinations and other documents raised in the case of CXXXVIII v Commonwealth by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and
  • amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.

Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties like the Centre Alliance were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

5th Dec 2019, 4:34 PM – Senate Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2019 - Third Reading - Statutory review

Show detail

The majority voted against amendment (1), which was introduced by the Centre Alliance, which means it failed. The amendment would have required an independent review of this bill's amendments after a period of 12 months.

Amendment text

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The review must be commenced as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after this Act commences.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced in order to:

  • respond to concern about the validity of certain ACIC determinations and other documents raised in the case of CXXXVIII v Commonwealth by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and
  • amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.

Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties like the Centre Alliance were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

5th Dec 2019, 1:55 PM – Senate Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

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

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced in order to:

  • respond to concern about the validity of certain ACIC determinations and other documents raised in the case of CXXXVIII v Commonwealth by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and
  • amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.

Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties like the Centre Alliance were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

4th Dec 2019, 12:09 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced to:

  • Expand the existing presumption against bail for persons charged with or convicted of certain Commonwealth offences to include a broader group of individuals, including those that a bail authority is satisfied have made statements or carried out activities supporting terrorist acts or advocating support for terrorist acts; and also apply it to bail decisions in relation to other Commonwealth offences if a person was previously charged with or convicted of certain offences
  • Introduce a presumption against parole that will apply in similar circumstances to the expanded presumption against bail
  • Provide an exception to the minimum non-parole period for certain offences, where an offender is under 18 years of age and exceptional circumstances exist
  • Provide that in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify going against the presumption against bail or parole, or setting a shorter non-parole period, in relation to a person under 18 years of age a court must have regard to certain matters
  • Expand the eligibility for the continuing detention order (CDO) scheme for high risk terrorist offenders by ensuring that terrorist offenders who are imprisoned for a terrorism offence and another offence remain eligible for consideration for a CDO at the conclusion of the term of their imprisonment and
  • Remove the requirement for an individual in relation to whom an application has been made for a CDO to be provided with a complete copy of the application in certain circumstances.
absent No Passed by a modest majority

14th Oct 2019, 8:23 PM – Senate Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 - in Committee - Add a sunset provision

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by South Australian Senator Rex Patrick (Centre Alliance), which means it succeeded. The bill will now need to be returned to the House of Representatives, where our MPs will decide on whether they agree with this amendment or not.

The amendment will introduce a sunset provision into the bill so that the new powers will need to be reconsidered once four years have passed. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is will be conducting a review of this legislation in three years time, so Parliament should have the benefit of that review by that time.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 8), before section 3UL, insert:

3ULA Expiration of this Division

This Division is repealed at the start of the day after the end of the period of 4 years beginning on the day the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Act 2019 commenced.

What does the bill do?

According to the bills digest:

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 (the 2019 Bill) will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to:

  • expand existing police powers to require identity information from a person at a major airport
  • introduce new move-on powers for police under which they may give a written direction to a person at a major airport that the person not take a flight, or leave the airport as soon as possible
  • introduce new powers for police to give a direction to a person at a major airport that the person stop or do anything else considered necessary to facilitate the exercise of the identity information request or move-on powers and
  • allow the Minister to determine by legislative instrument that certain airports are major airports for the purposes of the exercise of powers outlined above.

While the existing identity-checking power may only be exercised by a constable, the expanded and new powers in the Bill will be available to constables and Australian Federal Police (AFP) protective service officers (PSOs). Contravening a direction will be an offence.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

1st Aug 2019, 11:34 AM – Senate Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time. This means that the senators can now discuss the bill in greater detail.

What is the bill's main idea?

This bill was introduced to extend the operation of certain special powers relating to suspected terrorism offences to 7 September 2020. Currently, those powers are due to sunset (that is, stop being part of our law) on 7 September 2019.

What are the special powers?

The special powers extended by this bill are the power to issue questioning warrants (QWs) and questioning and detention warrants (QDWs) in relation to suspected terrorism offences. They are extraordinary because they can be issued in relation to someone even though they are not suspected of, or charged with, any offence. In other words, these warrants are an intelligence-gathering and preventative power. Someone might be subject to these warrants because they can provide information about a potential terrorism offence and they may be detained in order to prevent them from damaging evidence or alerting someone involved in a terrorism offence that their actions are being investigated.

These powers have been extended several times since they were first introduced in 2002. More information is available in the bills digest.

Yes No Passed by a large majority

25th Jul 2019, 4:19 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019, Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 - in Committee - Oversight

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by SA Senator Rex Patrick (Centre Alliance), which means it failed.

What would the amendments do?

Senator Patrick explained that:

The amendment will amend the Intelligence Services Act to remove most, although not all, the current legislative constraints on the scope of the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s inquiries, and would allow the committee to review the operational performance of our intelligence agencies—a vital aspect of any effective scrutiny regime. The proposed amendment to the role of the PJCIS does retain existing prohibitions on:

… reviewing information provided by, or by an agency of, a foreign government where that government does not consent to the disclosure of the information; …

It also retains the prohibition on conducting inquiries into individual complaints about the activities of designated intelligence and national security agencies, as those complaints are appropriately dealt with by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

20th Sep 2018, 12:27 PM – Senate Motions - Right to Privacy - Protect

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John (WA), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) in 2013, the UN General Assembly affirmed that the rights held by people offline must also be protected online, and it called upon all states to respect and protect the right to privacy in digital communication,

(ii) on 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the methods for bulk interception of online communications used by the United Kingdom's (UK) Government Communications Headquarters violated privacy and failed to provide sufficient surveillance safeguards,

(iii) the ECHR ruled that safeguards must indicate "the nature of offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their communications intercepted; a limit on the duration of interception; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which intercepted data may or must be erased or destroyed",

(iv) the legal challenge was brought by Big Brother Watch and Others following revelations by National Security Agency whistleblower, Mr Edward Snowden, in 2013 that intelligence services were covertly intercepting, processing, and storing communications data in bulk, and

(v) Australian mass surveillance laws, including the proposed Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, are based on the UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016, also known as the Snoopers' Charter; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) consider Australia's obligations under the UN Declaration of Human Rights and international laws, including the European General Data Protection Regulation, and

(ii) review Australian privacy and surveillance laws, to ensure Australians' human rights are upheld, including their right to privacy, and that sufficient safeguards are enshrined in legislation.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

16th Aug 2018, 11:38 AM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced to:

  • Extend provisions relating to control orders, preventative detention orders and the declared area offence, and terrorism-related stop, search and seizure powers, currently due to sunset on 7 September 2018, for a further three years
  • Extend provisions relating to questioning warrants and questioning and detention warrants, also currently due to sunset on 7 September 2018, for a further 12 months and
  • Implement the Government’s response to certain recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) in their most recent reviews of those provisions by: > * increasing the minimum period between an interim control order being made and the date set for a confirmation hearing from 72 hours to seven days > * allowing interim control orders to be varied > * clarifying the status of the original request for an interim control order in confirmation hearings > * providing that the issuing court must not make an order for costs against the person in relation to whom a control order is sought or has been made (subject to a limited exception) > * requiring the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to notify the PJCIS in writing of the making of an initial preventative detention order as soon as reasonably practicable > * amending the exception to the declared areas offence to include performing an official duty for the International Committee of the Red Cross > * enabling the Minister for Foreign Affairs to revoke a declaration of an area, and the PJCIS to review a declaration of an area, at any time > * requiring the AFP Commissioner to report to the relevant Minister, the INSLM and the PJCIS as soon as practicable after any exercise of the stop, search and seizure powers and > * requiring the Minister to report annually to Parliament on the use of the stop, search and seizure powers.
Yes No Passed by a large majority

28th Jun 2018, 6:54 PM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Increasing oversight

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick, who explained that:

this amendment seeks to amend the Intelligences Services Act to extend the oversight role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to cover the operations of those agencies.

...

In my first speech to the Senate last December, I highlighted the need for parliamentary scrutiny of our intelligence community to extend beyond questions of administration and finance to matters of policy and effectiveness and, indeed, operational matters. The PJCIS is currently severely limited in the scope of its oversight role.

What does this bill do?

This bill was introduced to:

  • amend existing, and introduce new, espionage offences relating to a broad range of dealings with information, including solicitation and preparation and planning offences;
  • introduce new offences relating to foreign interference with Australia’s political, governmental or democratic processes;
  • replace the existing sabotage offence with new sabotage offences relating to conduct causing damage to a broad range of critical infrastructure that could prejudice Australia’s national security;
  • introduce a new offence relating to theft of trade secrets on behalf of a foreign government;
  • amend existing, and introduce new, offences relating to treason and other threats to national security, such as interference with Australian democratic or political rights by conduct involving the use of force, violence or intimidation; and
  • introduce a new aggravated offence where a person provides false or misleading information relating to an application for, or maintenance of, an Australian Government security clearance.

Read more in the bills digest.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

28th Jun 2018, 6:12 PM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Sunset provision

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to introduce the following sunset provision to the bill:

This Act is repealed at the start of the day 3 years after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.

This motion was introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim.

What does this bill do?

This bill was introduced to:

  • amend existing, and introduce new, espionage offences relating to a broad range of dealings with information, including solicitation and preparation and planning offences;
  • introduce new offences relating to foreign interference with Australia’s political, governmental or democratic processes;
  • replace the existing sabotage offence with new sabotage offences relating to conduct causing damage to a broad range of critical infrastructure that could prejudice Australia’s national security;
  • introduce a new offence relating to theft of trade secrets on behalf of a foreign government;
  • amend existing, and introduce new, offences relating to treason and other threats to national security, such as interference with Australian democratic or political rights by conduct involving the use of force, violence or intimidation; and
  • introduce a new aggravated offence where a person provides false or misleading information relating to an application for, or maintenance of, an Australian Government security clearance.

Read more in the bills digest.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

28th Jun 2018, 10:17 AM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018 and another - Second Reading - Oversight

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to add the following words to the normal second reading motion "that the bills be read a second time". (Reading bills for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing to the bills' main idea.)

Motion text

At the end of the [normal second reading] motion, add:

", and:

(a) the amendments circulated by Senator Patrick on sheet 8446 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report by 13 August 2018; and

(b) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has reported."

The amendments referred to in the motion text relate to the issue of the oversight of intelligence services.

What do these bills do?

These bills were introduced to target foreign influence in Australia by creating a new transparency scheme and introducing a series of new offences targeting things like sabotage, treason and espionage.

Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018

This bill was introduced to establish the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme to, which will:

  • require registration by certain people undertaking certain activities on behalf of a foreign principal;
  • require registrants to disclose information about the nature of their relationship with the foreign principal and activities undertaken pursuant to that relationship;
  • place additional disclosure requirements on registrants during elections and other voting periods;
  • establish a register of scheme information and provide for certain information to be made publicly available;
  • provide the secretary with powers to obtain information and documents; and
  • establish various penalties for non-compliance with the scheme.

Read more in the bills digest.

National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018

This bill was introduced to:

  • amend existing, and introduce new, espionage offences relating to a broad range of dealings with information, including solicitation and preparation and planning offences;
  • introduce new offences relating to foreign interference with Australia’s political, governmental or democratic processes;
  • replace the existing sabotage offence with new sabotage offences relating to conduct causing damage to a broad range of critical infrastructure that could prejudice Australia’s national security;
  • introduce a new offence relating to theft of trade secrets on behalf of a foreign government;
  • amend existing, and introduce new, offences relating to treason and other threats to national security, such as interference with Australian democratic or political rights by conduct involving the use of force, violence or intimidation; and
  • introduce a new aggravated offence where a person provides false or misleading information relating to an application for, or maintenance of, an Australian Government security clearance.

Read more in the bills digest.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

26th Jun 2018, 6:45 PM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee - Refer foreign interference bills

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to refer two bills targeting foreign interference in Australia to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which means they won't be referred.

Senator Brian Burston (NSW) crossed the floor and voted against the rest of the Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party by voting "No".

Motion text

That the provisions of the following bills be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018:

(a) National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017; and

(b) Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

9th May 2018, 11:03 AM – Senate Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Parliamentary oversight

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick calling for greater parliamentary oversight of Australia's national security and intelligence services.

Senator Patrick explained that:

These amendments will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to extend parliamentary scrutiny to the operation of Australia's national security and intelligence agencies. ... Centre Alliance considers it imperative to improve parliamentary oversight of Australia's intelligence agencies as they face greater challenges and are given more resources and powers to intrude into the lives of Australian citizens. Australia's 10 national security and intelligence agencies employ more than 7,000 people and spend well over $2 billion per annum while they accumulate massive amounts of data at home and abroad. As the intelligence agencies have expanded, the mechanisms of accountability and review have received much less attention and fewer resources.

What does this bill do?

The bills digest explains that:

On 18 July 2017, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would establish a Home Affairs portfolio that will bring together Australia’s immigration, border protection, law enforcement and domestic security agencies in a single portfolio. Australian governments had previously considered but rejected the establishment of something similar to the US Department of Homeland Security or the UK Home Office on several occasions since the early 2000s. The new portfolio will be ‘modelled loosely’ on the UK’s arrangements, comprising a central department responsible for policy and strategic planning and several agencies that will retain their statutory independence.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

7th Dec 2017, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Security Services - Scrutiny

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of an amendment to a motion, which means the motion was amended in the manner set out below.

Original motion text

That the Senate notes—

(a) the need for the executive to respect and protect the non-political role of the security services;

(b) the need to keep confidential information secure;

(c) the importance of the principle that intelligence material should not be used for partisan purposes;

(d) the offences for communicating intelligence information under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including penalties; and

(e) the recommendations of the Hope Royal Commissions on Intelligence and Security, in particular, relating to the relationship between the security services and executive government and the responsibility of the Government to protect and adhere to the above principles.

Amendment text

At the end of paragraph (e), add—

", and further affirms that enhanced scrutiny of the security services as proposed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015, and extending to appropriate oversight of agency operations, would increase confidence that the security services strictly adhere to their non-political role and that intelligence material will not be used for partisan purposes."

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

17th Aug 2017, 12:27 PM – Senate Motions - Australian Secret Intelligence Service - Appear before Committee

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Senator Nick Xenophon (SA), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Foreign Minister has denied Witness K, a former public servant and Australian citizen, an Australian passport,

(ii) the denial was made on the advice of the Australian Security Intelligence Service (ASIS), a competent authority for the purpose of the Australian Passports Act 2005,

(iii) denying an Australian citizen a passport is a serious restriction of liberty, and must not be done lightly,

(iv) during Budget estimates, questions were put to the Attorney-General (representing the Foreign Minister) as to the appropriateness of ASIS being relied upon as a competent authority in the circumstances of the case – the Attorney-General took the question on notice,

(v) after consideration, the Government has advised that the questions put to the Attorney-General are properly questions for ASIS,

(vi) although there is no constraint prohibiting ASIS from appearing at estimates hearings, they do not normally do so, and

(vii) the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee has declined to invite ASIS to appear at the October 2017 supplementary Budget estimates hearings; and

(b) orders that the Australian Security Intelligence Service appear before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at the October 2017 supplementary Budget estimates hearings.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

8th Nov 2016, 7:24 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted to support the main idea of the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against giving the bill a second reading.

This means that the Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill:

is the latest in a series of reforms to national security and counter-terrorism laws since mid-2014. The Government states the Bill would address issues that have come to light through recent counter-terrorism investigations and operational activity.

A key part of the bill relates to control orders. For example, the bill would lower the minimum age that a control order can be imposed from 16 to 14 years of age. It would also introduce new ‘monitoring powers’ to:

allow police to use entry, search and seizure, telecommunications interception and surveillance device powers in relation to a person subject to a control order to monitor their compliance with the order and prevent terrorist related conduct

A concerning part of the bill relates to procedural fairness and will:

allow courts to consider information that is not disclosed to the person subject to a control order or their representative for security reasons, in control order proceedings ... and introduce a system of special advocates to represent the interests of those people in proceedings from which they and their legal representatives have been excluded ...

Yes No (strong) Passed by a modest majority

How "voted moderately against" 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 2 0 100
MP absent 1 25 50
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 7 0 70
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 6 6 12
Total: 51 252

*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 = 51 / 252 = 20%.

And then