How George Brandis voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should keep up or increase the amount of money it spends on defence

Division George Brandis Supporters vote Division outcome

9th May 2017, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Fund diplomatic network and aid

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means it failed.

The motion asked for the Government "not to purchase weaponised drones, and instead direct funding to strengthening Australia’s diplomatic network and increasing Australia’s aid budget from its current record low".

Full motion text

That the Senate—

(a) is deeply concerned that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is reportedly planning to purchase weaponised drones;

(b) notes that:

(i) the Obama Administration is estimated to have killed at least 7 000 people with these lethal unpiloted aircraft during its term of government,

(ii) the Bureau of Investigative Journalists estimates that up to 1 168 civilians have been killed in United States (US) drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia alone,

(iii) due to the lack of transparency surrounding the US’s lethal drone program, and the practice of categorising unidentified people killed in strikes as enemies even if they were not the intended target, it is impossible to tally the exact number of civilian deaths, and

(iv) weaponised drone strikes exacerbate the very threat that the ADF is seeking to confront; and

(c) calls on the Australian Government not to purchase weaponised drones, and instead direct funding to strengthening Australia’s diplomatic network and increasing Australia’s aid budget from its current record low.

absent No Not passed by a large majority

22nd Mar 2017 – Senate Motions - Defence Expenditure - Redirect

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion against defence spending that was introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the Government's recent announcement that it plans to spend $730 million on the Next Generation Technologies Fund, which has been touted as a "war chest" to help create "super troops" in the Australian Defence Force,

(ii) the Government's cognitive dissonance in committing nearly three quarters of a billion dollars to defence flights of fancy while maintaining the mantra that Australia needs to "live within its means", and

(iii) the Government's cuts to schools, hospitals and investments in public infrastructure, and its proposed cuts to Australia's social safety net; and

(b) calls on the Australian Government to spend $730 million on schools, hospitals and public infrastructure, as well as protecting and enhancing Australia's social safety net, rather than a slush fund for unnecessary and wasteful military spending.

absent No (strong) Not passed by a large majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case George Brandis was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.