How Rex Patrick voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce laws that allow people who have been convicted of certain terrorist offences to be kept in detention even after their custodial sentences have ended if there is an unacceptable risk that they will commit certain serious terrorism offences after being released

Division Rex Patrick Supporters vote Division outcome

4th Dec 2019, 12:09 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced to:

  • Expand the existing presumption against bail for persons charged with or convicted of certain Commonwealth offences to include a broader group of individuals, including those that a bail authority is satisfied have made statements or carried out activities supporting terrorist acts or advocating support for terrorist acts; and also apply it to bail decisions in relation to other Commonwealth offences if a person was previously charged with or convicted of certain offences
  • Introduce a presumption against parole that will apply in similar circumstances to the expanded presumption against bail
  • Provide an exception to the minimum non-parole period for certain offences, where an offender is under 18 years of age and exceptional circumstances exist
  • Provide that in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify going against the presumption against bail or parole, or setting a shorter non-parole period, in relation to a person under 18 years of age a court must have regard to certain matters
  • Expand the eligibility for the continuing detention order (CDO) scheme for high risk terrorist offenders by ensuring that terrorist offenders who are imprisoned for a terrorism offence and another offence remain eligible for consideration for a CDO at the conclusion of the term of their imprisonment and
  • Remove the requirement for an individual in relation to whom an application has been made for a CDO to be provided with a complete copy of the application in certain circumstances.
Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a modest majority

16th Aug 2018, 11:38 AM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced to:

  • Extend provisions relating to control orders, preventative detention orders and the declared area offence, and terrorism-related stop, search and seizure powers, currently due to sunset on 7 September 2018, for a further three years
  • Extend provisions relating to questioning warrants and questioning and detention warrants, also currently due to sunset on 7 September 2018, for a further 12 months and
  • Implement the Government’s response to certain recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) in their most recent reviews of those provisions by: > * increasing the minimum period between an interim control order being made and the date set for a confirmation hearing from 72 hours to seven days > * allowing interim control orders to be varied > * clarifying the status of the original request for an interim control order in confirmation hearings > * providing that the issuing court must not make an order for costs against the person in relation to whom a control order is sought or has been made (subject to a limited exception) > * requiring the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to notify the PJCIS in writing of the making of an initial preventative detention order as soon as reasonably practicable > * amending the exception to the declared areas offence to include performing an official duty for the International Committee of the Red Cross > * enabling the Minister for Foreign Affairs to revoke a declaration of an area, and the PJCIS to review a declaration of an area, at any time > * requiring the AFP Commissioner to report to the relevant Minister, the INSLM and the PJCIS as soon as practicable after any exercise of the stop, search and seizure powers and > * requiring the Minister to report annually to Parliament on the use of the stop, search and seizure powers.
Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a large 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 2 100 100
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
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: 100 100

*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 = 100 / 100 = 100%.

And then