How Don Farrell voted compared to someone who believes that the Federal government should introduce temporary protection visas

Division Don Farrell Supporters vote Division outcome

2nd Dec 2013, 9:46 PM – Senate Regulations - Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013 - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disallow the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013, which means this Regulation will no longer have legal force.

Among other things, this Regulation reintroduced temporary protection visas. Read more in its explanatory memorandum.

Motion text

That the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 234 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.

Yes No (strong) Passed by a small majority

27th Jun 2013, 11:59 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Reinstatement of Temporary Protection Visas) Bill 2013 [No. 2] - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to read the bill for a second time.

The motion was put by Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash.(Read Senator Cash's second reading speech here. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced as a private senator's bill by Liberal Senator Cash. It amends the Migration Act 1958 to create two visa subclasses for people who arrive in Australia without a visa at an excised offshore place (such as Christmas Island) and apply for asylum. The visa subclasses are: temporary protection (offshore entry) visas and temporary protection (secondary movement offshore entry) visas.(Read more about these proposed visa subclasses in the bill's explanatory memorandum here or in the Senate discussion of the bill here.)

References

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

12th Sep 2012, 11:40 AM – Senate Motions — Republic of Nauru - Coalition policies

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash. This would have amended a previous motion(See the division on that motion here. ) with the following:

At the end of the motion, add “and in addition to the opening of offshore processing on Nauru, calls on the Government to implement the full suite of the Coalition’s successful border protection policies and:

(a) restore temporary protection visas as the only visa option available to be granted to offshore entry persons found to be refugees;

(b) issue new instructions to Northern Command to commence to turn back boats seeking to illegally enter Australia where it is safe to do so;(FactCheck on ABC discussed whether it is illegal to turn back boats in international waters to Indonesia here. )

(c) use existing law to remove the benefit of the doubt on a person’s identity where there is a reasonable belief that a person has deliberately discarded their documentation; and

(d) restore the Bali Process to once again focus on deterrence and border security”.

There was one rebel voter in this division. Labor Senator Lin Thorp crossed the floor to vote with the Coalition.(Read more about crossing the floor here.) However, Senator Thorp subsequently sought leave to make a personal statement that "I apologise that I rushed in and inadvertently sat on the wrong side of the chamber during the division". This suggests that the Senator did not intend to cross the floor.

References

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

16th Aug 2012, 5:17 PM – Senate Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Coalition policies (b)

Show detail

The majority voted against part (b) of a motion proposed by Liberal Senator Eric Abetz.

This motion calls on the Government to implement Coalition policies with regards to asylum seekers. This includes:

  • restoring temporary protection visas for persons found to be refugees;
  • instructions to turn back asylum seekers boats when it is safe to do so;
  • removing the benefit of the doubt on a person's identity when it is suspected that that person deliberately discarded their documentation;
  • making the Bali Process focus on deterrence and border security.

Someone who votes aye for this motion supports this view. The majority voted no to this motion so it was unsuccessful.

Background to the bill

The bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's Malaysia Solution policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia here and on ABC News here. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution here.)

To this end, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island, and alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.

References

absent Yes Not 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 2 0 100
MP absent 0 0 0
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* 1 1 2
Total: 1 112

*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 = 1 / 112 = 0.89%.

And then