Compare how James Paterson and David Smith voted on implementing refugee and protection conventions
James Paterson
Liberal Party Senator for Victoria since March 2016
David Smith
Australian Labor Party Representative for Bean since May 2019
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 James Paterson or David Smith could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson and David Smith 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 | James Paterson | David Smith | 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 either James Paterson or David Smith 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 "-".