How Fraser Anning 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 Fraser Anning Supporters vote Division outcome

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.

No Yes (strong) Not 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 1 0 50
MP absent 1 25 50
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 2 0 20
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 3 3 6
Total: 38 136

*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 = 38 / 136 = 28%.

And then