How Gavin Marshall voted compared to someone who believes that there should be more independent access to detention centres and more information provided about the management of asylum seekers under Australian government policy, including the interception of boats at sea

Division Gavin Marshall Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Jun 2014, 12:30 PM – Senate Committees - World Refugee Day - Transparency

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which means the motion failed. The motion called for more transparency over the Australian asylum seeker processing system.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that 20 June 2014 is World Refugee Day, when all nations recognise the resilience and humanity of forcibly displaced people around the world;

(b) notes the vast and positive contribution that refugees have made and continue to make to Australian society;

(c) reaffirms Australia's strong commitment to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol in recognition of the need to restore hope to those seeking protection in our region; and

(d) calls on the Government to:

(ii) be more transparent and open about the conditions and circumstances experienced by asylum seekers in immigration detention centres controlled by the Australian Government,

(ii) establish independent and systematic monitoring of sites of immigration detention, and

(iii) take steps to prevent further incidents and improve safety and conditions for asylum seekers in immigration detention centres.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

9th Dec 2013, 4:21 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - UNHCR reports into Nauru and Manus Island

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which is:

That the Senate calls on the Minister assisting the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Senator Cash) to:

(a) provide a statement to the Senate on the United Nations High Commission for Refugees report into the conditions in the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres by Wednesday, 11 December 2013; and(Read the report on Nauru here and the report on Manus Island here. You can also read about the reports in the media here.)

(b) explain to the Senate how the Government intends to respond and action the recommendations made by the reports respectively.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

5th Dec 2013, 12:47 PM – Senate Documents - Asylum Seekers; Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

This is a vote on a motion put by Labor Senator McEwen requesting that

all incident reports, logs, briefings, ministerial notes, internal communications and other reports (excluding any publicly available documents), in relation to the reported incident that took place on Friday, 15 November 2013, involving the towing of an Indonesian vessel near Christmas Island by an Australian Customs, Navy or other government asset or vessel be released.

The majority of MPs voted aye in support of this motion.

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

16th May 2013, 11:28 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Media access

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment proposed by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that media access to offshore detention facilities be of the same standard as the current access in Australian detention facilities. The Greens proposed this amendment to allow for the proper scrutiny of offshore detention facilities.

Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.

Background of the Bill

This bill was introduced in response to a report by the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, particularly Recommendation 14 which states that: "the Migration Act 1958 be amended so that arrival anywhere on Australia by irregular maritime means will not provide individuals with a different lawful status than those who arrive in an excise offshore place".(Read the full report here. )

By implementing this recommendation, the bill extends the excision regime that was introduced in 2001 following the Tampa affair. That regime provides that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia at excised offshore places are unable to apply for protection visas (in effect, refugee status under Australian law) unless the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship decides it is in the public interest that they do so. The effect of this bill will be to extend the excision provisions to the whole country.(More information on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 is available on the bills digest (680 KB). Also see an ABC news report explaining the effect of this bill here.)

This means that all asylum seekers arriving by boat in either mainland Australia or an offshore Australian territory that has been excised are unable to apply for protection visas and will be sent to regional processing countries (currently Papua New Guinea and Nauru) for the processing of their refugee claims. The rationale behind this legislation is the need to discourage asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat because of the dangers involved.

References

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

16th May 2013, 11:06 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - In Committee - AHRC access

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment proposed by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This amendment would require that the Australian Human Rights Commission ('AHRC') be able to visit, inspect and report on the conditions in offshore processing countries. This access would have to be equivalent to access the AHRC would have in Australia.

Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.

Background of the Bill

This bill was introduced in response to a report by the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, particularly Recommendation 14 which states that: "the Migration Act 1958 be amended so that arrival anywhere on Australia by irregular maritime means will not provide individuals with a different lawful status than those who arrive in an excise offshore place".(Read the full report here. )

By implementing this recommendation, the bill extends the excision regime that was introduced in 2001 following the Tampa affair. That regime provides that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia at excised offshore places are unable to apply for protection visas (in effect, refugee status under Australian law) unless the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship decides it is in the public interest that they do so. The effect of this bill will be to extend the excision provisions to the whole country.(More information on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 is available on the bills digest (680 KB). Also see an ABC news report explaining the effect of this bill here.)

This means that all asylum seekers arriving by boat in either mainland Australia or an offshore Australian territory that has been excised are unable to apply for protection visas and will be sent to regional processing countries (currently Papua New Guinea and Nauru) for the processing of their refugee claims. The rationale behind this legislation is the need to discourage asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat because of the dangers involved.

References

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

7th Feb 2013, 12:18 PM – Senate Motions - Immigration Detention Facilities - Media access

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion moved by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which was:

''That the Senate calls on the government to:

(a) facilitate media access to the detention camps in Nauru and Manus Island to provide for transparency and public accountability about the conditions inside the camps;(Read more about the Australian mandatory detention policy here.)

(b) lift the current ban on photographs and footage of the detention facilities; and

(c) allow consenting asylum seekers and refugees within the facilities to speak freely to media agencies and journalists.

References

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

12th Sep 2012, 11:45 AM – Senate Motions - Republic of Nauru - 12 month limit on detention

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This would have amended a previous motion(See the division on that motion here.) with the following:

At the end of the motion, add “with the inclusion of a 12 month time limit on detention of an individual in Nauru, and calls on the Government to immediately establish an independent Health Care Panel to monitor and evaluate the medical, psychological and psychiatric welfare of refugees sent offshore”.

References

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

16th Aug 2012, 9:09 PM – Senate Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Independent annual review

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

This amendment would require the Immigration Minister to conduct an independent annual review of offshore regional processing facilities. This review would also include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements in each regional processing country. Such a report would have to be released to the public within 14 days of the Minister for Immigration receiving it.

Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no to this amendment, so it was unsuccessful.

Background to the bill

This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It was drafted in response to the High Court's judgement in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship () HCA 32, which put an end to the Labor Government's Malaysia Solution policy.(Read more about the decision on Wikipedia here and on ABC News here. Read more about the effect of this decision on the Malaysia Solution here.)

To this end, the bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to replace the existing framework for taking offshore entry persons to another country for assessment of their claims to be refugees. The bill also replaces discretionary detention with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers at an offshore place, such as Christmas Island, and alters the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 in relation to making and implementing any decision to remove, deport or take a non-citizen child from Australia by overriding the guardianship obligations under that Act.

References

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

12th Oct 2011 – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Siev X

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne. This means that the motion was unsuccessful.

The motion was:

That the Senate-    (a)   recalls, with regret, that on 19 October 2001, the SIEV X carrying approximately 400 asylum seekers sank on its way to Australia, resulting in the drowning of 146 children, 142 women and 65 men and only 41 people survived; and (b)   notes that:       (i)   in interviews with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, survivors told of the involvement of the Indonesian military in the boarding and organising of the voyage,       (ii)   survivors reported that they saw two military vessels appear, shine lights on the water and sail away,       (iii)    HMAS Arunta stood 4 hours away,       (iv)   Australia maintained a People Smuggling Disruption Program in the region at the time,(Read about the People Smuggling Disruption Program here. For more, read Senator John Faulkner's additional comments.)       (v)   the Australian listening station at Shoal Bay was operational at the time, and       (vi)   many outstanding serious questions remain about the failure to rescue desperate people in the water and must be answered in the interest of justice and humanity; and    (c)   calls on the Government to establish a judicial inquiry into the SIEV X, subsequent investigations in the SIEV X tragedy and all circumstances pertaining to its voyage, loss and rescue of survivors.

References

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

24th Nov 2009, 3:41 PM – Senate Border Protection Committee of Cabinet Meeting - Order - Produce documents

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against the motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, no later than 2 pm on Wednesday, 25 November 2009, documents outlining or including, the following:

(a) the date, time and duration of the meetings of the Border Protection Committee of Cabinet since it was established in about April 2009;

(b) in relation to each of the meetings referred to above, details of all the attendees at each meeting, including the name and position of each attendee and the capacity in which they attended the meeting;

(c) in relation to any ministerial staff attending any meeting, the level of security clearance of all ministerial staff who attended each meeting;

(d) all documents relating to the formulation, discussion and approval (including any drafts) of the letter from Mr Jim O’Callaghan, Minister-Counsellor Immigration, Australian Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia, entitled Message to the 78 passengers on the Oceanic Viking, dated November 2009, including by the Border Protection Committee of Cabinet or any other committee, taskforce or entity;

(e) all documents relating to the formulation, discussion and approval (including any drafts) of the letter from Mr Andrew Metcalfe, Department of Immigration and Citizenship to Senator Evans, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, dated 16 November 2009, including by the Border Protection Committee of Cabinet or any other committee, taskforce or entity;

(f) in relation to the formulation, discussion or approval referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e), which was undertaken by any other committee, taskforce or entity other than the Border Protection Committee of Cabinet, documents outlining or including:

(i) the name of the other committee, taskforce or entity,

(ii) the date, time and duration of the meeting/s of the other committee, taskforce or entity, and

(iii) details of all the attendees at each meeting of the other committee, taskforce or entity, including the name and position of each attendee and the capacity in which they attended the meeting;

(g) in relation to any ministerial staff attending any meeting, the level of security clearance of all ministerial staff who attended each meeting of the Border Protection Committee of Cabinet or any other committee, taskforce or entity;

(h) in relation to approval referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) above, details of the date, time, duration and attendees at the meeting or meetings that resulted in such approval by the Border Protection Committee of Cabinet or any other committee, taskforce or entity;

(i) details of when the Prime Minister became aware of the decision of the Border Protection Committee of Cabinet or any other committee, taskforce or entity to make the offer referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) above and how he became aware of this decision;

(j) in relation to the letter from Mr Jim O’Callaghan, Minister-Counsellor Immigration, Australian Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia, entitled Message to the 78 passengers on the Oceanic Viking, dated November 2009, all documents relating to the formulation, discussion and approval (including drafts) of any arrangements, undertakings or special circumstances with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding processing and resettlement of the asylum seekers;

(k) in relation to the letter from Mr Jim O’Callaghan, Minister-Counsellor Immigration, Australian Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia, entitled Message to the 78 passengers on the Oceanic Viking, dated November 2009 and the letter from Mr Andrew Metcalfe, Department of Immigration and Citizenship to Senator Evans, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, dated 16 November 2009, all documents relating to the formulation, discussion and approval (including drafts) of any arrangements, undertakings or special circumstances with Indonesia regarding the detention, processing and resettlement of the asylum seekers; and

(l) in relation to any approval covered by paragraphs (h) and (i), a statement of whether the Prime Minister or any member of the Prime Minister’s staff approved any part, aspect, detail or condition contained in the letter from Mr Jim O’Callaghan, Minister-Counsellor Immigration, Australian Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia, entitled Message to the 78 passengers on the Oceanic Viking, dated November 2009 and in the letter from Mr Andrew Metcalfe, Department of Immigration and Citizenship to Senator Evans, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, dated 16 November 2009.

No Yes Not passed

27th Aug 2008, 4:21 PM – Senate Motions - MV Tampa: Seventh Anniversary - Inquiry into immigration detention

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. This means that the motion was rejected.

The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes that:

(i) 26 August marked the 7th anniversary of the rescue of 433 asylum seekers by the MV Tampa,(Read more about this incident on Wikipedia.)

(ii) this rescue was followed by the refusal of the Coalition Government to allow the ship to enter Australian shores in direct violation of both maritime conventions and human rights obligations, and

(iii) the majority of the refugees, including children, were detained indefinitely on Nauru, as part of the Coalition’s ‘ Pacific Solution’; and

(b) calls on the Government, as part of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia, to look into the psychological harm mandatory detention has caused children and their families as a matter of urgency.

References

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

10th May 2007, 10:17 AM – Senate Motions - Iraq - Information requested

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion for information in regards to the civilians displaced by the war in Iraq, which means the motion failed.

Motion text

That the Senate calls on the Government to inform the Senate by 13 June 2007 on the following matters:

(a) the number of civilians displaced by the war in Iraq, both internally and externally;

(b) the circumstances of these Iraqi refugees;

(c) what aid or assistance is going to the refugees and what component of that aid comes from the Australian Government;

(d) how many such refugees have been accommodated in Australia and what plans there are to give refuge to more; and

(e) what calls from the United Nations, the Red Cross or any other international agencies have been made to nations, including Australia, to meet the refugees’ needs.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

2nd Mar 2006, 11:37 AM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional References Committee - Refer

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to refer certain matters to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report, which means the motion failed.

Motion text

I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report:

(a) all actions carried out by the Government for assisting refugee and special humanitarian visa holders in their country of departure and managing the transition of refugees and humanitarian entrants from their country of departure to their settlement in Australia;

(b) the processes used by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to handle the migration of the family of Mr Richard Niyonsaba to Australia and the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Niyonsaba after his arrival in Australia; and

(c) recommendations for improvement in the processes for assisting refugees and humanitarian entrants in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of all future new arrivals to Australia.

Yes Yes Not 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 4 200 200
MP voted against policy 6 0 300
MP absent 11 275 550
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 4 40 40
MP voted against policy 6 0 60
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 5 5 10
Total: 520 1160

*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 = 520 / 1160 = 45%.

And then