How Rex Patrick voted compared to someone who believes that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without a visa, particularly those who arrive by boat, should have their asylum claims processed regionally in a country such as the Republic of Nauru or Papua New Guinea (See the policy "For offshore processing of asylum seekers" for more on processing asylum seeker claims in Australian territories like Christmas Island)

Division Rex Patrick Supporters vote Division outcome

15th Feb 2018, 11:56 AM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - End offshore detention

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 13 February 2018, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released an update on UNHCR observations from their latest mission to Manus Island,

(ii) UNHCR Regional Protection Officer, Mr Rico Salcedo, stated “What stood out the most from this mission at the time we were there, was a pervasive and worsening sense of despair among refugees and asylum seekers”,

(iii) the UNHCR further stated “We cannot emphasize enough that solutions must be found for all, outside of Papua New Guinea, as a matter of urgency. Australia remains ultimately responsible, as the state from which these refugees and asylum seekers have sought international protection, for their welfare and long-term settlement outside of Papua New Guinea”, and

(iv) there have been recent reports of deteriorating conditions on Nauru, and that refugees and people seeking asylum on Nauru are also the responsibility of Australia; and

(b) calls on the Government to end offshore detention, and evacuate to Australia every person who sought asylum in Australia and who is currently in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

absent No Not passed by a modest majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Rex Patrick was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.