How Ron Boswell 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 Ron Boswell Supporters vote Division outcome

28th Feb 2012, 3:42 PM – Senate Documents — Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

Senator Bob Brown moved:

That there be laid on the table by 13 March 2012, by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Evans), the report undertaken by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the actions of the relevant Australian agencies in relation to the arrest and detention overseas of Mr Mamdouh Habib.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

13th Nov 2008, 12:58 PM – Senate Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008 [No. 2] - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through before becoming law here.) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill. The senators can now consider the bill in detail.

Background to the bill

Like the previous Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008 (which is not proceeding), this bill provides for the appointment of an independent person to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of laws relating to terrorism.

References

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

9th Aug 2007, 10:30 AM – Senate Committees - Australia’s Antiterrorism Laws Committee - Establishment

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, which means that it was rejected.

The motion was:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Australia’s Anti-terrorism Laws be established to inquire into and report upon Australia’s anti-terrorism laws in light of the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, including whether the laws which enabled the detention and charging of Dr Haneef:

(a) adequately safeguard Australian citizens from the threat of terrorism;

(b) reasonably and adequately define ‘terrorism’ and terrorism-related offences;

(c) provide reasonable and adequate guidance on matters of policy, practice and procedure to investigative and enforcement agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police;

(d) maintain an appropriate balance between the need to curtail individual freedoms in situations involving a terrorist threat and the fundamental civil liberties and human rights of Australian citizens;

(e) have affected fundamental principles of justice such as the presumption of innocence and habeus corpus, and the granting of bail;

(f) allow for periods of indefinite detention of suspects while being questioned or contain provisions allowing for periods of ‘dead time’ which require amendment or review;

(g) are in accordance with notions of procedural fairness and natural justice;

(h) contain or require provisions allowing parliamentary or judicial review;

(i) are compatible with Australia’s obligations under international law;

(j) interact appropriately with other powers of detention or deportation, for example immigration laws; and

(k) any other related matters pertaining to the operation of the laws.

(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 1 December 2007.

(3) That the committee consist of 9 senators, as follows:

(a) 4 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c) 2 to be nominated by minority groups or independents.

(4) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(5) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the non-government parties in the Senate.

(6) That the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.

(7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(8) That the quorum of the committee be 5 members.

(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the senators appointed to the subcommittee.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

How "voted moderately 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 1 50 50
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 1 25 50
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 75 110

*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 = 75 / 110 = 68%.

And then