How Jo Lindgren voted compared to someone who believes that there should be more independent access to detention centres and more information provided about the management of asylum seekers under Australian government policy, including the interception of boats at sea

Division Jo Lindgren Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Apr 2016, 7:36 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Present documents to the Senate

Show detail

The majority voted for a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which means it was successful. The motion asked for documents relating to asylum seeker contracts to be "laid on the table" (that is, presented to the Senate).

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 21 April 2016:

(a) any, and all, documents in the Australian Government's possession, including, and in relation to:

(i) any contracts between Broadspectrum (formerly known as Transfield Services) and its subcontractor Wilson Security in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea,

(ii) any sub-contracts engaged in by Wilson Security and other entities in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, and

(iii) any contracts between the Australian Government and Wilson Security in relation to the Government and its agencies;

(b) any, and all, documents in the Australian Government's possession pertaining to the procurement and due diligence process undertaken prior to the awarding of any contracts between:

(i) the Australian Government and Broadspectrum, and its subcontractor Wilson Security, in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, including Wilson Security's directorship and or the Kwok family, and

(ii) the Australian Government and Wilson Security in relation to the Government and its agencies, including Wilson Security's directorship and or the Kwok family; and

(c) any, and all, documents in relation to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's internal investigation, and or review, into Wilson Security's role in relation on Nauru and Manus Island as reported in the Australian on 7 April 2016.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2015, 5:38 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Access to regional detention centres

Show detail

The majority voted against two Greens amendments that were introduced by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which means they were unsuccessful.

What did the amendments do?

Senator Hanson-Young explained what the two amendments do like this:

These amendments allow for media access to these facilities, access for the Human Rights Commission and access by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Both the Human Rights Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have access to Australian based detention centres, and those on Christmas Island. This set of amendments gives those two bodies access to any other facility in relation to the offshore network. That, of course, means those on Manus Island and Nauru.

The element of allowing journalists to access these facilities is absolutely important. ... [W]e have the Abbott government saying they are all big supporters of free speech and that they have nothing to hide. Well, if you have nothing to hide, open the gates and let the media in.

Amendment text

Greens amendment (3):

(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 198AB(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) The only conditions for the exercise of the power under subsection (1) are:

(a) that the Minister thinks that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country; and

(b) that subsection (4A) has been complied with.

1B After subsection 198AB(4)

Insert:

(4A) The Minister must not designate a country to be a regional processing country unless the country has given Australia assurances, in writing, to the effect that the country will allow the following persons or bodies reasonable access to unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to the regional processing country under section 198AD:

(a) the Australian Human Rights Commission;

(b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman;

(c) journalists (within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995).

(4B) The assurances referred to in subsection (4A) need not be legally binding.

Note: However, the Minister must revoke a designation if the country does not comply with those assurances, see subsection (5A).

1C After subsection 198AB(5)

Insert:

(5A) If:

(a) the Minister designates a country under subsection (1); and

(b) the country has given written assurances under subsection (4A); and

(c) the Minister becomes aware that the country has not complied, or is not complying, with those assurances;

the Minister must revoke the designation.

Greens amendment (5):

(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the Schedule, add:

2 Application—written assurances relating to access

The amendments made to the Migration Act 1958 by items 1A, 1B and 1C apply in relation to the designation of a country as a regional processing centre on or after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

3 Application and transitional—regional processing countries designated before Royal Assent

(1) This item applies if the Minister designated a country to be a regional processing country under subsection 198AB(1) of the Migration Act 1958 before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) As soon as practicable, but no later than 3 months after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, the Minister must revoke the designation unless the country has given assurances, in writing, to the effect that the country will allow the following persons or bodies reasonable access to unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to the regional processing country under section 198AD of that Act:

(a) the Australian Human Rights Commission;

(b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman;

(c) journalists (within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995).

(3) If the assurances under subitem (2) are given, subsection 198AB(5A) of the Migration Act 1958, as amended by this Schedule, applies in relation to the designation on and after the day the assurances are received, as if the designation were made under section 198AB of that Act as amended by this Act.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2015, 5:24 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Mandatory reporting of abuse

Show detail

The majority voted against two amendments introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA), which means it was unsuccessful.

What did the amendments do?

Senator Hanson-Young explained the amendments like this:

These amendments provide that child abuse and assault inside detention facilities, when it occurs, would have to be reported to the police—both the Federal Police and the local police at the location of the facility—and, of course, to the department. They are basic mandatory reporting requirements. They mean that, for any staff member engaged in these facilities or any person who is contracted by the Commonwealth or subcontracted by another contractor, if you work inside the facility and you see child abuse, you must report it.

Amendment text

Amendment (8):

(8) Page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 2), add:

Schedule 3—Mandatory reporting of abuse

Migration Act 1958

1 After section 197BA

Insert:

197BAA Mandatory reporting of reportable assaults

(1) If a designated person believes on reasonable grounds that a person has experienced, or is experiencing, a reportable assault, the designated person must, as soon as practicable, notify the relevant authorities of:

(a) the alleged assault; and

(b) the grounds on which the person has formed the belief that the alleged assault occurred.

Offence

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is required to make a notification under subsection (1); and

(b) the person fails to comply with the requirement.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

Geographical jurisdiction

(3) Section 15.3 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category C) applies to an offence against subsection (2).

Interpretation

(4) In this section:

designated person means:

(a) an authorised officer; and

(b) a person appointed or employed by, or for the performance of services for:

(i) the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and

(c) a person employed by another person or body that is contracted by the Commonwealth, or an authority of the Commonwealth, to perform services in relation to an immigration detention facility.

relevant authority means:

(a) in any case—the Department and the Australian Federal Police; and

(b) if:

(i) the victim of an alleged reportable assault is a child; and

(ii) the alleged assault occurs in a State or Territory;

a relevant authority of the State or Territory that has functions relating to child safety; and

(c) if:

(i) the victim of an alleged reportable assault is a child; and

(ii) the alleged assault occurs in a foreign country;

a police force of the foreign country.

reportable assault means any of the following, to the extent that they occur, or allegedly occur, in an immigration detention facility:

(a) unlawful sexual contact;

(b) sexual harassment;

(c) unreasonable use of force;

(d) any other assault.

Amendment (2):

(2) Clause 2, page 2, at the end of the table, after proposed table item 3, add:

4. Schedule 3 Immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Act 2015.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

16th Jun 2015, 4:14 PM – Senate Documents — Australian Customs Service; Order for the Production of Documents — Paying people smugglers

Show detail

The majority of Senators voted in favour of the following motion by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, by 3 pm on 17 June 2015, all documents containing information pertaining to:

  • (i) any money paid to anyone on board a vessel en route to Australia or New Zealand by any Customs, Immigration or other Commonwealth officer from September 2013 to date, and

  • (ii) the facilitation or authorisation of the payment of any money to anyone on board a vessel en route to Australia or New Zealand by any Customs, Immigration or other Commonwealth officer from September 2013 to date, and

in relation to any such payment, a document containing information pertaining to the details of the interception of the vessel, the amount of money paid, to whom and for what purpose; and

(b) there be laid on the table by the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, by 3 pm on 17 June 2015, any documents produced by the Office of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection or the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service regarding:

  • (i) the interception of a vessel en route to Australia or New Zealand in May 2015,

  • (ii) any orders to turn back or take back that vessel, its passengers or crew,

  • (iii) any payments made to the vessel’s captain, crew or passengers, and

  • (iv) any payments made in relation to the passage of the vessel, its passengers or crew.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "voted very strongly 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 4 0 200
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 200

*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 = 0 / 200 = 0.0%.

And then