How Richard Di Natale 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 Richard Di Natale Supporters vote Division outcome

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.

Yes No Passed by a small majority

18th Oct 2017, 2:02 PM – Senate Motions - Department of Human Services - Staffing

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert (WA), which means it passed.

Although motions like these don't have legal force, they do represent the will of the Senate and so have some influence on the Government.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Turnbull Government cut nearly 1200 jobs from the Department of Human Services in the 2017-18 Budget;

(b) acknowledges that 42 million calls to Centrelink hit a busy signal between 1 July 2016 and 30 April 2017;

(c) notes that the Government is engaging private contractor Serco to supply 250 call centre workers to answer Centrelink calls from income support recipients;

(d) condemns allowing a private contractor to run a critical Government service involving access to the personal information of Centrelink clients; and

(e) calls on the Government to reinstate the jobs cut from the Department of Human Services, and act on the recommendations of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee, Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative, as soon as possible.

Yes No Passed by a small majority

13th Oct 2016, 1:57 PM – Senate National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and another - in Committee - Protection of private data

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Labor Senator Helen Polley (Tas), which means they were rejected.

What were the amendments?

Senator Polley explained that her amendments would have:

  • required that individuals be told if their data has been breached;
  • increased the penalty for unauthorised use or disclosure of information; and
  • made explicit that the Commonwealth will be custodian of data in the register.

Find out more about the bill

The two bills under discussion are the:

Together, they create a National Cancer Screening Register. Read more about them in the bills digest.

Motion text

See OpenAustralia for the motion text.

Yes No Not passed by a small majority

How "voted very strongly 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 3 0 30
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 30

*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 = 0 / 30 = 0.0%.

And then