How Stephen Parry voted compared to someone who believes that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators should vote to speed things along by supporting motions to 'put the question' (known as 'closure' or 'gag' motions), which require Parliament to immediately vote on a question rather than debating it any further

Division Stephen Parry Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Jun 2014 – Senate Regulations and Determinations — Australian Meat and Live—stock Industry (Export of Live—stock to Egypt) Repeal Order 2014 - Put the motion (for disallowance)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the question now be put". This motion ends debate by requiring that the vote occur immediately.

The question was whether a motion put by Senator Lee Rhiannon be agreed to. That motion related to the live export industry and was subsequently put.(See that motion here.)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a large majority

15th May 2014, 11:11 AM – Senate National Integrity Commission Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. The question was whether to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. )

Because this motion was unsuccessful, the second reading debate will continue and the vote on whether to read the bill for a second time will take place at a later date.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced as a private member's bill by Senator Christine Milne. It seeks to establish a National Integrity Commission as an independent statutory agency in order to:

  • investigate and prevent misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments, agencies, and federal parliamentarians and their staff;
  • investigate and prevent corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission; and
  • provide independent advice to ministers and parliamentarians on conduct, ethics and matters of proprietary.(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here.)
No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

27th Jun 2013, 11:52 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Reinstatement of Temporary Protection Visas) Bill 2013 [No. 2] - Second Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question now be put.

The motion was put by Liberal Senator Eric Abetz. The question to be put was whether to read the bill a second time.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced as a private senator's bill by Liberal Senator Michaelia 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

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

20th Jun 2013, 11:21 AM – Senate Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - End debate on bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted for ending the debate on the bill's main idea so the senators will now be asked whether they agree with it straight away without any more talk. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

The bill’s main idea was that Australian law should recognise all marriages that are legal overseas, including same-sex marriages.

Background to the bill

Same-sex marriage is not legal or recognised in Australia so homosexual couples who marry overseas are not considered married here.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced this bill two months after New Zealand became the latest country to allow same-sex marriage (more information on Wikipedia).

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Jun 2013, 10:47 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Put the question (Greens amendment - extend protection)

Show detail

This division relates to the Policies For protecting Australia's fresh water resources and For coal seam gas extraction.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was whether the Greens Party amendment should be agreed to.

The Greens amendment was introduced by Senator Larissa Waters.

The vote on the amendment is available here.

Background to the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See here for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Jun 2013, 10:12 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Put the question (Liberal Party amendment)

Show detail

This division relates to the Policies For protecting Australia's fresh water resources and For coal seam gas extraction.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was whether the Liberal Party's amendment should be agreed to.

The Liberal Party amendment was introduced by Senator Simon Birmingham to draw a distinction between "exploration or appraisal activities and actual production and development activities".(You can read Senator Birmingham's comments about the amendment here. )

The vote on the amendment is available here.

Background to the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See here for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Jun 2013, 9:46 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Put the question (Greens Party amendment - owner consent)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was whether the Greens Party amendment should be agreed to.

The Greens amendment was introduced by Senator Larissa Waters and requires the Minister to get the consent of land owners and occupiers before approving developments that this bill’s provisions apply to.

See also the vote on the amendment.

Background to the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See here for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Mar 2012, 10:21 PM – Senate Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills - Second Reading - That the question now be put

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Labor Senator Jacinta Collins that the question now be put.

The question referred to was one moved by Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann that:

...so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent the Senate debating the issues that were just raised by Senator Bob Brown in relation to the constitutional aspects of his amendment and the constitutional aspects of the mining tax.(To learn more about standing orders, see this Fact Sheet. )

This means that the majority were in favour of now voting on Senator Cormann's motion, rather than continuing to debate the issue.(The division on Senator Cormann's motion is available here.)

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Mar 2012, 9:26 PM – Senate Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills - Second Reading - That the question now be put

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Labor Senator Jacinta Collins that the question now be put.

The question referred to was a motion moved by Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann that:

...so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.(To learn more about standing orders, see this Fact Sheet. )

This means that the majority were in favour of now voting on Senator Cormann's motion, rather than continuing to debate the issue.(The division on Senator Cormann's motion is available here.)

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

8th Nov 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - In Committee - Put the question

Show detail

This division relates to the Policy For a carbon price.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be now put, which was moved by Labor Senator Chris Evans, Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Evans introduced the motion to put an end to the debate, which he said had already taken an "enormous amount of time".(Read the rest of Senator Evans explanation for the amendment here.)

The bills being debated were a package of eighteen bills to implement a carbon pricing mechanism, which is a key policy of the Australian Labor Party while in Government.

The eighteen bills were:

Background to the bills

The carbon pricing mechanism would commence on 1 July 2012. It is an emissions trading scheme that will put a price on carbon emissions. It will apply to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon will be fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market.

For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website.

References

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

12th Oct 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - First Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Senator Joe Ludwig.

The motion was to put the question, meaning that this division was a vote on whether the Senate should now vote on a particular question. In this case, the question was whether these bills may proceed without formalities.(The division on that question is available here. )

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Bill 2011 and seventeen related bills are designed to introduce the carbon pricing mechanism,(For more detail about the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website.) which will commence on 1 July 2012. It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon will be fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market.

The eighteen bills were:

References

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

11th Oct 2011 – Senate Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 - Third Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put. The question was that the bill be read a third time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

Compulsory student union fees were abolished under then Prime Minister John Howard’s Coalition Government with the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Upfront Student Union Fees) Bill 2005. This meant that universities could no longer require students to pay a compulsory fee for facilities, amenities or services that were not of an academic nature.

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 is the third bill introduced by the Labor Government to re-introduce a compulsory student services and amenities fee since 2009. The first bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and other Measures) Bill 2009, was defeated in the Senate.(See that division here.) The second, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009, lapsed at the end of the 42nd Parliament.

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "voted a mixture of for and 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 14 700 700
MP voted against policy 12 0 600
MP absent 5 125 250
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: 825 1550

*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 = 825 / 1550 = 53%.

And then