How Jacqui Lambie voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should implement the international conventions that relate to seeking refuge and protection from torture. These include the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the non-refoulement provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Division Jacqui Lambie Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Jul 2014, 2:21 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2014 - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to disallow Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2014. In other words, they wanted the Regulation to keep having legal force.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the motion, explained:

The Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2014 includes a number of elements. It is primarily about punishing vulnerable children who have arrived in Australia on their own, some orphaned, without families, and others who have had to leave their family in escaping war, torture and persecution. Those children who are now already in Australia—who have been found to be genuine refugees, who we have acknowledged, after proper assessment, need and deserve Australia's protection—are being punished through this regulation by the government in removing the special criterion which applied to them in being able to be reunited with their families. The regulation applies to children who, as I have said, are already here.

Motion text

That the Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2014, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2014 No. 32 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

17th Jul 2014, 12:27 PM – Senate Motions — Asylum Seekers — Against 'on water' screening and transfer practices

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. The motion was:

"That the Senate calls on the Government to cease the current 'on water' screening and transfers of asylum seekers which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said fall well short of Australia's international obligations and could mean that asylum seekers were returned, or refouled, to persecution."

Background to the motion

By "'on water' screening and transfers", Senator Hanson-Young is referring to two recent incidents involving asylum seeker boats intercepted by Australian Customs.

The first involved an asylum seeker boat that carried 41 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, including four Tamils. The boat was intercepted by Australian Customs and their claims for asylum were assessed via teleconference at sea. Only one was found to have a case for seeking asylum, but the Government says they chose to return to Sri Lanka with the others after being told they would be sent to Manus Island or Nauru. All 41 people were transferred to the Sri Lankan navy and are now facing charges in a Sri Lankan Court.(Read more about the 41 people returned to Sri Lanka by Australian Customs here.)

The second incident involved a boat that carried 153 asylum seekers, including young children. The boat was also intercepted by Australian Customs but a High Court interim injunction blocked them from transferring the asylum seekers to Sri Lanka.(Read more about the High Court interim injunction here. ) The Government has undertaken to give three days' notice before returning the asylum seekers. Currently, the 153 asylum seekers are aboard a Customs vessel in an unknown location and it is unclear whether they will stay there until their case can proceed through the High Court.(Read more about the standoff in the High Court here.)

Australia's international protection obligations include the principle of non-refoulement, which ABC News explained as "UN-speak for not turning away a refugee without a fair hearing, a key tenet of the 1951 Refugee Convention".(Read the whole ABC News article here.)

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

14th Jul 2014, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions — Asylum Seekers — Against 'on water' screening and transfer practices

Show detail

The same number of senators voted in favour and against part (b) of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This means that the motion was unsuccessful as a majority was not reached. The motion was:

That the Senate-

[...]

(b) calls on the Government to cease the current 'on water' screening and transfer practices which fall short of Australia's international protection obligations.

This is the second part of Senator Hanson-Young's motion. The first part, part (a), was voted on previously.(See the division on part (a) here. )

Background to the motion

By "'on water' screening and transfer practices", Senator Hanson-Young is referring to two recent incidents involving asylum seeker boats intercepted by Australian Customs.

The first involved an asylum seeker boat that carried 41 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, including four Tamils. The boat was intercepted by Australian Customs and their claims for asylum were assessed via teleconference at sea. Only one was found to have a case for seeking asylum, but the Government says they chose to return to Sri Lanka with the others after being told they would be sent to Manus Island or Nauru. All 41 people were transferred to the Sri Lankan navy and are now facing charges in a Sri Lankan Court.(Read more about the 41 people returned to Sri Lanka by Australian Customs here.)

The second incident involved a boat that carried 153 asylum seekers, including young children. The boat was also intercepted by Australian Customs but a High Court interim injunction blocked them from transferring the asylum seekers to Sri Lanka.(Read more about the High Court interim injunction here. ) The Government has undertaken to give three days' notice before returning the asylum seekers. Currently, the 153 asylum seekers are aboard a Customs vessel in an unknown location and it is unclear whether they will stay there until their case can proceed through the High Court.(Read more about the standoff in the High Court here. )

Australia's international protection obligations include the principle of non-refoulement, which ABC News explained as "UN-speak for not turning away a refugee without a fair hearing, a key tenet of the 1951 Refugee Convention".(Read the whole ABC News article here.)

absent Yes Not passed

How "voted moderately 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 4 200 200
MP voted against policy 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 3 30 30
MP voted against policy 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 3 3 6
Total: 233 326

*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 = 233 / 326 = 71%.

And then