How John Madigan 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 John Madigan Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Jul 2014, 3:55 PM – Senate Motions — Asylum Seekers — Disclose information

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of part (a) of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) requests that the Government:

(i) update the chamber on operations undertaken on the high seas which relate to the two asylum seeker boats intercepted by Australian authorities in the past 2 weeks, and

(ii) disclose the whereabouts of the 153 people, including 37 children, who are believed to have left India over 3 weeks ago by boat; ...

The second half of this motion, part (b), was voted on immediately after this division.(See the division on part (b) here. )

Background to the motion

The first of the two asylum seeker boats referred to in Senator Hanson-Young's motion 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 vessel referred to in the motion contained 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.)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

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.

Yes 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.

Yes 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.

Yes 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

Yes 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

Yes 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

Yes 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

Yes 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

Yes 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

How "voted 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 15 750 750
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 3 75 150
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 4 40 40
MP voted against policy 2 0 20
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 866 962

*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 = 866 / 962 = 90%.

And then