How Claire Chandler voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should give the private sector control over running and managing its services (such as public welfare and health services)

Division Claire Chandler Supporters vote Division outcome

6th Feb 2020, 12:21 PM – Senate Motions - Aged-Care Assessments - Privatisation + consult with states

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by SA Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance), which means it passed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) with deep concern, the Government's decision to privatise aged care assessments from April 2021 with a tender to be held this year, and

(ii) the Government's decision was not made in consultation with State Health Ministers;

(b) recognises that there are eighty aged care assessment teams (ACAT) operating across the nation which include state-employed multi-disciplinary teams of nurses, geriatricians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists and social workers who work at public hospitals, to expertly assess the more complex level of care required by individual elderly Australians;

(c) further notes the recent statement by the Chair of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety on ACAT privatisation that:

(i) the Royal Commission's Interim Report did not endorse the Government's position on privatising ACAT, and

(ii) the Commission has not yet made a recommendation about which sector or mechanism will best achieve an integration of Regional Assessment Services and the Aged Care Assessment Teams;

(d) acknowledges that:

(i) health experts argue that no private providers can offer the expertise to adequately assess the often complex needs of hundreds of thousands of elderly Australians, and

(ii) outsourcing assessment teams would have a serious detrimental impact on the delivery of proper care; and

(e) calls on the Federal Government to consult with the state health ministers on the issue of ACAT privatisation, as a matter of urgency.

No No Passed by a small majority

1st Aug 2019, 12:18 PM – Senate Committees - Visa Processing - Do not privatise

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Anne Urquhart (Labor), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Morrison Government plans to privatise Australia's visa processing system threatens 100 jobs in Tasmania,

(ii) under the Liberals' plan, private providers will be given licence to run Australia's visa system as a for-profit business,

(iii) the Liberals' unfair plan could also lead to the loss of around 2,000 jobs Australia-wide,

(iv) there could be increased visa fraud, cuts to services, and data security risks if the services are privatised,

(v) Australians don't want to see our visa system privatised, and they especially don't want to see people lose their jobs,

(vi) under the Liberals, there have been thousands of full time jobs lost across Tasmania in just the last year,

(vii) the Department of Home Affairs last year outsourced 250 departmental call centre jobs to the New Zealand company Datacom, while the Department of Human Services outsourced 250 Centrelink jobs to Serco,

(viii) visa processing times have blown out under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government,

(ix) partner visas are at record-high processing times of up to 28 months,

(x) the number of people on bridging visas in Australia – waiting for the Department of Home Affairs to process their applications – has blown out to over 229,000 people, and

(xi) the Home Affairs Minister, Mr Peter Dutton, and the Liberals, appear determined to outsource and sell off parts of Australia's immigration system to the highest possible bidder; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to protect the integrity of Australia's visa processing system, and stop its plan to privatise Australia's visa system.

No No Passed by a small 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 20 20

*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 = 20 / 20 = 100%.

And then