How George Brandis voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce mandatory drug testing for people who receive certain welfare payments

Division George Brandis Supporters vote Division outcome

7th Dec 2017, 5:59 PM – Senate Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

Show detail

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

What is the bill's main idea?

The bill was introduced to:

  • create a single job seeker payment
  • establish a drug testing trial and
  • remove existing exemptions for jobseekers experiencing drug or alcohol dependence.
absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

14th Jun 2017, 4:09 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Abandon drug testing income support

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by WA Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the drug testing trial of 5,000 people applying for income support announced in the 2017-18 budget,

(ii) that the Government may require an exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to enact this measure,

(iii) that, in 2013, a position paper by The Australian National Council on Drugs, found there would be serious ethical and legal problems with implementing a drug testing program for income support recipients in Australia,

(iv) that both the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada stepped away from proposals for drug testing income support recipients because it was rejected by experts as being discriminatory or imposing unfair conditionality, and

(v) that, from 2011 to 2014, only two people out of 108 408 tested in Arizona, USA had a positive drug test; and

(b) calls on the Government to abandon this budget measure.

absent No 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.