How Jo Lindgren voted compared to someone who believes that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without a visa, particularly those who arrive by boat, should have their asylum claims processed regionally in a country such as the Republic of Nauru or Papua New Guinea (See the policy "For offshore processing of asylum seekers" for more on processing asylum seeker claims in Australian territories like Christmas Island)

Division Jo Lindgren Supporters vote Division outcome

4th Feb 2016, 12:37 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Let Them Stay

Show detail

The majority voted against the motion by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young calling on the Turnbull Government to let the 267 men, women and children who were part of the recent failed High Court challenge to stay in Australia.

This motion was proposed on the same day that protests took place around Australia, with the social media hashtag #LetThemStay being used by supporters.

Motion text

That the Senate calls on the Turnbull Government to grant amnesty to the 267 men, women and children in Australia as part of the M68 High Court challenge, and allow them to stay.

No No (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2015, 6:15 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they gave the bill a third reading.

The bill will now go to the Senate for the senators to decide whether to pass it or not.

What does this bill do?

According to the bill's homepage, this bill:

provide[s] statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries, including the expenditure of Commonwealth money on these arrangements.

The bill will be "closing a loophole that left the offshore processing of asylum seekers at risk of being overturned by the High Court" (read more on ABC's PM program).

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2015, 5:02 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Detention of children

Show detail

The majority voted against two Greens amendments that were introduced by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA).

What do the amendments do?

Senator Hanson-Young explained that the amendments related "to stopping children that are here in Australia being sent to Nauru for further detention". They also required children already in regional detention to be returned to Australia "as soon as reasonably practicable" (see full text below).

Amendment text

Amendment (1) from sheet 7738:

(1) Clause 2, page 2, at the end of the table, add:

3. Schedule 2 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.

Amendment (7) from sheet 7738:

(7) Page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Detention of vulnerable persons

Migration Act 1958

1 Subsection 198AD(1)

Omit "sections 198AE, 198AF and 198AG", substitute "sections 198AE, 198AF, 198AG and 198AGA".

2 After section 198AG

Insert:

198AGA Vulnerable persons

(1) Section 198AD does not apply to an unauthorised maritime arrival if the person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection (2).

(2) A person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of this subsection if:

(a) the person is aged under 18; or

(b) the person is the parent or guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by paragraph (a).

3 Application

The amendments to the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule apply in relation to an unauthorised maritime arrival on or after the day on which this Schedule commences.

4 Transitional—vulnerable persons transferred before Royal Assent

(1) This item applies to a person if:

(a) the person was an unauthorised maritime arrival at any time on or after 13 August 2012; and

(b) the person was taken from Australia to a regional processing country in accordance with subsection 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958; and

(c) at the time the person was taken to the regional processing country the person was:

(i) aged under 18; or

(ii) the parent or guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by subparagraph (i); and

(d) on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, the person is:

(i) aged under 18; or

(ii) the parent or guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by subparagraph (i).

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable, an officer must ensure the person is removed from the regional processing country and returned to Australia.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2015, 12:21 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree with the main idea

Show detail

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

What was different about this second reading motion?

Normally, a motion to agree to the main idea of the bill, or a second reading motion, says only: That this bill be now read a second time.

But in this case, the motion was successfully amended by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA) so that it now read:

That this bill be now read a second time but the Senate notes:

the findings of the Review by Phillip Moss into conditions in Nauru and the evidence currently before the Senate Select Committee into conditions in Nauru.

What does this bill do?

According to the bill's homepage, this bill:

provide[s] statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries, including the expenditure of Commonwealth money on these arrangements.

The bill will be "closing a loophole that left the offshore processing of asylum seekers at risk of being overturned by the High Court" (read more on ABC's PM program).

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a modest 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 3 150 150
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: 160 160

*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 = 160 / 160 = 100%.

And then