We can't say anything concrete about how Andrew McLachlan voted on implementing refugee and protection conventions
How Andrew McLachlan voted compared to 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
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for implementing refugee and protection conventions” which Andrew McLachlan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Andrew McLachlan on this policy.
| Division | Andrew McLachlan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th May 2024, 7:19 PM – Senate Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Consideration of UN conventions |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for implementing refugee and protection conventions” which Andrew McLachlan could have attended.
| Division | Andrew McLachlan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th Sep 2024, 5:33 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Work Health and Safety (Operation Sovereign Borders) Declaration 2024 - Disallowance |
absent | Yes |
5th Dec 2023, 4:42 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - deportation and imprisonment |
absent | No |
8th Mar 2023, 10:01 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Evacuation to Safety) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
17th Jun 2020, 4:13 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Resettlement |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Andrew McLachlan has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.