Compare how Scott Ludlam and Matt Thistlethwaite voted on ending immigration detention on Nauru
Scott Ludlam
Former Australian Greens Senator for WA July 2008 – July 2017
Matt Thistlethwaite
Australian Labor Party Representative for Kingsford Smith since September 2013
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the federal government should close its Nauru Regional Processing Centre and stop all Nauru-based processing of people's claims for asylum
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 ending immigration detention on Nauru” which either Scott Ludlam or Matt Thistlethwaite could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Scott Ludlam and Matt Thistlethwaite 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 | Scott Ludlam | Matt Thistlethwaite | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
7th Feb 2023, 5:55 PM – Representatives Regulations and Determinations - Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country |
- | absent | No |
25th Jun 2015, 5:02 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Detention of children |
Yes | - | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which either Scott Ludlam or Matt Thistlethwaite 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 "-".