How Matt O'Sullivan voted compared to someone who believes 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

Division Matt O'Sullivan Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Jun 2020, 4:13 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Resettlement

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against parts (c)(ii) and (d) of the motion, which means they failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) agrees that:

(i) ...

(ii) the indefinite detention of refugees, both offshore and onshore, causes trauma and harm to people who have applied for refugee status under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; and

(d) calls on the Federal Government to immediately accept the kind offer from the New Zealand government to provide resettlement to 150 people each year from Australia's offshore detention cohort.

absent Yes Not passed

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Matt O'Sullivan was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.