How Sue Lines voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should make it an offence to enter or remain in areas that have been listed as “declared areas” by the Minister for Foreign Affairs because of terrorist activity (such as the Mosul district in Iraq and Al-Raqqa Province in Syria)

Division Sue Lines Supporters vote Division outcome

12th Aug 2021, 12:53 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill. In other words, they voted to read it for a third time, which means that the bill will now be sent to the House of Representatives for their consideration.

What does the bill do?

According to the bill homepage, the bill was introduced:

  • to extend the operation of the declared areas provisions for a further 3 years and the control order regime and the preventative detention orders (PDO) regime for a further 15 months;
  • to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to their sunset date;
  • to extend the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for a further 15 months; and
  • to extend the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor’s review of continuing detention orders for high risk terrorist offenders to as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021.
absent Yes (strong) Passed by a modest majority

12th Aug 2021, 12:48 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Declared areas offence amendments

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by WA Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens), which means they failed. The amendments would have only extended the sunset date for the declared area provisions to 7 December 2022 (as opposed to 7 September 2024) and would have required the intelligence and security committee to do a review of those provisions by 7 June 2022.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 5), omit "7 September 2024", substitute "7 December 2022".

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 13 to 17), omit paragraph 29(1) (bbaa), substitute:

(bbaa) to review, by 7 June 2022, the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code (which provide for declared areas in relation to foreign incursion and recruitment)

What does the bill do?

According to the bill homepage, the bill was introduced:

  • to extend the operation of the declared areas provisions for a further 3 years and the control order regime and the preventative detention orders (PDO) regime for a further 15 months;
  • to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to their sunset date;
  • to extend the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for a further 15 months; and
  • to extend the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor’s review of continuing detention orders for high risk terrorist offenders to as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021.
absent No Not passed by a large majority

16th Aug 2018, 11:38 AM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced to:

  • Extend provisions relating to control orders, preventative detention orders and the declared area offence, and terrorism-related stop, search and seizure powers, currently due to sunset on 7 September 2018, for a further three years
  • Extend provisions relating to questioning warrants and questioning and detention warrants, also currently due to sunset on 7 September 2018, for a further 12 months and
  • Implement the Government’s response to certain recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) in their most recent reviews of those provisions by: > * increasing the minimum period between an interim control order being made and the date set for a confirmation hearing from 72 hours to seven days > * allowing interim control orders to be varied > * clarifying the status of the original request for an interim control order in confirmation hearings > * providing that the issuing court must not make an order for costs against the person in relation to whom a control order is sought or has been made (subject to a limited exception) > * requiring the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to notify the PJCIS in writing of the making of an initial preventative detention order as soon as reasonably practicable > * amending the exception to the declared areas offence to include performing an official duty for the International Committee of the Red Cross > * enabling the Minister for Foreign Affairs to revoke a declaration of an area, and the PJCIS to review a declaration of an area, at any time > * requiring the AFP Commissioner to report to the relevant Minister, the INSLM and the PJCIS as soon as practicable after any exercise of the stop, search and seizure powers and > * requiring the Minister to report annually to Parliament on the use of the stop, search and seizure powers.
Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a large 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 4 200 200
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 1 25 50
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 236 262

*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 = 236 / 262 = 90%.

And then