Compare how Chris Evans and David Feeney voted on implementing refugee and protection conventions
Former Australian Labor Party Senator for WA July 1993 – April 2013
Former Australian Labor Party Representative for Batman September 2013 – February 2018
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees 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
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for implementing refugee and protection conventions” which either Chris Evans or David Feeney could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Chris Evans and David Feeney on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
|Division||Chris Evans||David Feeney||Supporters vote|
22nd Oct 2014, 5:12 PM – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for implementing refugee and protection conventions” which either Chris Evans or David Feeney could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".