How David Fawcett voted compared to someone who believes that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators should vote to suspend standing and sessional orders (that is, the procedural rules of Parliament) so that their colleagues can introduce motions for Parliament to vote on even when the the procedural rules would prevent them from doing so

Division David Fawcett Supporters vote Division outcome

20th Aug 2018, 4:20 PM – Senate Motions - Suspension of Standing Orders

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to suspend the usual rules so that a vote can happen. In parliamentary jargon:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

15th Aug 2018, 10:48 AM – Senate Motions - Anning, Senator Fraser; Censure - Let vote happen

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to suspend the usual rules to allow a vote to happen. In the usual parliamentary language, the motion was:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Greens moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter; namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the censure of Senator Anning.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2018, 4:53 PM – Senate Motions - Suspension of Standing Orders - Let Senator McKim introduce his motion

Show detail

The majority voted against suspending the usual procedural rules (known as standing orders) so that Greens Senator Nick McKim can introduce a motion.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McKim moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 878 which relates to the policy of US President Trump to forcibly separate families of people seeking asylum in the US.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

30th Nov 2017, 1:20 PM – Senate Motions - Dastyari, Senator Sam - Suspend standing order

Show detail

The majority agreed to a motion to suspend the usual parliamentary rules (known as standing orders) so that a vote can take place. Since this vote was successful, Senator George Brandis' motion could be voted on.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brandis moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to Senator Dastyari may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a modest majority

17th Oct 2017, 1:05 PM – Senate Motions - Suspension of Standing Orders - Let a vote happen

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to suspend the rules to allow a vote to happen. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against suspending the standing orders.

Greens Senator Richard Di Natale had introduced this motion so that he could move "a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to climate change".

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a large majority

17th Aug 2017, 1:50 PM – Senate Documents - Deputy Prime Minister - Let a vote happen

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to let a vote happen. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend the standing orders. This means that the vote won't happen.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McKim moving a motion relating to the Government's failure to provide a response to an order for production of documents concerning the Member for New England.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

16th Aug 2017, 10:09 AM – Senate Motions - Wong, Senator Penny; Censure - Let a vote happen

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to let a vote on Labor Senator Penny Wong to happen, which means the following motion won't take place.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to censure the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, in the following terms:

That the Senate censures the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) for:

(a) causing her Chief of Staff to engage in inappropriate conduct with a foreign political entity for the purpose of causing damage to Australia;

(b) causing her Chief of Staff to interfere in the political process of New Zealand for the purpose of undermining the Australian Government;

(c) misleading the Senate by suggesting that the issue of the Deputy Prime Minister's citizenship arose in New Zealand as a result of media inquiries, rather than orchestration by her Chief of Staff;

(d) embarrassing the government of New Zealand, and thereby potentially causing damage to Australia's relationship with one of our closest allies; and

(e) engaging in conduct which makes her unfit to ever hold the office of Foreign Minister of Australia.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

8th Aug 2017, 1:20 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Let a vote happen

Show detail

The majority voted against letting a vote happen. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against suspending standing orders.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McKim moving a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to deaths in Australia's offshore detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru and the need to evacuate the people there to safety in Australia.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

13th Jun 2017, 12:58 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to allow a vote to happen. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend standing orders.

Greens Senator Richard Di Natale introduced this motion on request of Senator Jacqui Lambie since Senator Lambie was absent last time this vote was taken.

What was the vote?

The vote at issue was a vote to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016

Senator Di Natale explains what this disallowance would restore the ability of terminally ill patients to access medicinal cannabis products. Read more about the regulation in its explanatory memorandum and the arguments for its disallowance in the debate.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the question on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 be put again immediately.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Mar 2016, 11:53 AM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Suspend standing orders

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Liberal Senator George Brandis:

The question now is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.

The suspension motion referred to is:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a minister moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion to exempt the bill from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

Basically, the majority are agreeing to speed things up.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

9th Sep 2015, 3:39 PM – Senate Motions — Debate parliamentary approval to send Australian Defence Forces to Syria

Show detail

The majority of Senators disagreed with Senator Di Natale's motion:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion relating to Australian forces in Syria.

He elaborated on the matter he proposed to discuss:

It is that parliamentary approval should be required for Australian forces to be deployed to Syria. I do believe this is a matter of urgency.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

12th Aug 2015, 10:20 AM – Senate Motions — Marriage Equality

Show detail

Richard Di Natale moved:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

3rd Mar 2015, 1:06 PM – Senate Motions — To suspend standing orders to discuss the Deployment of Australian Troops

Show detail

Senator Milne put forward a motion asking that the normal business of the Senate be stopped to discuss a motion relating to how Australian troop deployments are handled. The motion is to change the current system of troop deployment, which is by executive decision of the government in power, to a system that includes passing such a decision through Australia's elected representatives.

Senator Fifield Spoke against the motion citing two reasons:

The first being that he didn't feel enough notice or a good enough reason had been provided to warrant changing the proceedings for the day.

We do have an order of business in this place. We do have allocated time for government business. We do have allocated time as well for private senators' business. We do have allocated time for a range of contributions from colleagues in this place, and a very good reason always needs to be put forward if those arrangements are to be disturbed. My first point is that I do not think that the appropriate courtesies and notice have been observed in relation to this matter nor do I think a decent rationale has been put forward to change the arrangements for today.

The second and in his eyes more important reason is that he disagrees with the motion that Senator Milne wants to change the proceedings to discuss. His view is that troop deployment should remain an executive decision, although this view is not strictly relevant to the motion currently being debated.

The second and perhaps more significant reason for denying leave and opposing the motion to suspend standing orders moved my Senator Milne is the very long established convention and practice observed by both the coalition government and by also the Australian Labor Party in government—and I do not want to pre-empt whatever the Prime Minister will be saying today—that the deployment of Australian Defence Force personnel in whatever capacity and in whatever way is a decision for the executive government of the day. We do not have the system of the United States here where the congress needs to endorse or give approval to certain actions in relation to armed service personnel. We have a different system here.

Motion:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion relating to the deployment of Australian troops.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

30th Sep 2014, 4:23 PM – Senate Committees - Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government Select Committee - Suspend standing orders

Show detail

The majority agreed that Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus should immediately be able to introduce his motion to establish a select committee on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend the standing orders that would have stopped Senator Lazarus from doing this.

What will the committee do?

The select committee will inquire into and report on:

But! Because of Australia's federal system of government, the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.

Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus explained that he believed the committee was necessary because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his full explanation).

Background to the motion

This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus has introduced this motion. The first time failed because Liberal Senator Eric Abetz managed to amend the motion so the period of inquiry would begin from 21 March 2009 and therefore include former Labor Premier Anna Bligh's government.

Following that successful amendment, the motion lost the Labor Party's support and so was voted down without a division (see ABC News).

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

23rd Sep 2014, 4:21 PM – Senate Committees - Certain Aspects of the Queensland Government Select Committee - Let Senator Lazarus move his motion

Show detail

The majority agreed that Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus should be able to move his motion to establish a select committee. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend standing orders.

What will the committee do?

The select committee will inquire into and report on:

But! Because of Australia's federal system of government, the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.

Background to the motion

Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus explained that he proposed to establish this select committee because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his full explanation).

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Sep 2014, 1:07 PM – Senate Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014 — Business — Suspend standing orders (Consideration of legislation)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Senator Cormann wanted to suspend standing orders so that he could move a motion relating to the consideration of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014. His concern was that "parliament has now debated the mining tax repeal legislation for longer than it debated the original mining tax package and related measures putting this failed tax in place".(Read Senator Cormann's full explanation of his motion here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

1st Sep 2014, 10:35 AM – Senate Motions — To suspend standing orders to discuss parliamentary approval for the deployment of Australian troops in Iraq

Show detail

Senator Milne moved:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion relating to parliamentary approval for the deployment of Australian troops in Iraq.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

28th Feb 2013, 3:36 PM – Senate Motions - Suspension of Standing Orders - Let a vote happen

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to let a vote happen, which was introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA).

In parliamentary jargon, they voted against suspending standing orders that would prevent a vote from happening.

Motion text

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Milne moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the vilification of refugees and asylum seekers.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

31st Oct 2011 – Senate Motions - Clean Energy Legislation - Defer consideration

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Liberal Senator Eric Abetz.

This means that the motion was unsuccessful.

The motion was:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that further consideration of the Clean Energy Bill 2010 and 17 related bills not take place until after elections for the 44th Parliament have been held and the parliament has met.

In other words, Senator Abetz wanted to move a motion that the Senate put off considering the Clean Energy Bill 2010 and related bills until after the next elections. To do so, he first needed the majority of senators to agree to suspend the standing orders that currently prevent him from moving such a motion. Since he was unsuccessful, he will not be able to move his motion.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

How "voted a mixture of for and 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 7 350 350
MP voted against policy 11 0 550
MP absent 2 50 100
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: 400 1000

*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 = 400 / 1000 = 40%.

And then