How Bert Van Manen voted compared to someone who believes that the federal goverment should fund the Commonwealth’s contribution to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) by increasing the Medicare Levy for all Australians

Division Bert Van Manen Supporters vote Division outcome

25th Oct 2017, 10:22 AM – Representatives Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

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

This means that the House can now discuss the bill in more detail.

What does the bill do?

This bill is part of a package of bills introduced to fund the Commonwealth’s contribution to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It will increase the Medicare levy from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of a person’s taxable income. Read more in the bills digest.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

25th Oct 2017, 10:17 AM – Representatives Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Disagree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that asked the House to refuse to give the bill a second reading. In other words, they motion asked the House to disagree with the bill's main idea, which means the House would stop considering the bill any further.

Because this motion failed, the House continued to discuss the main idea of the bill.

Motion text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give this bill a second reading as:

(1) this is a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year;

(2) the Government is already supporting cuts to penalty rates for low and middle income workers;

(3) at a time of low wages growth and the high cost of living pressures, including energy costs, the Government should not be seeking to raise taxes on these low and middle income workers;

(4) the Government:

(a) is cutting funding for vocational education, university and research infrastructure, and transport infrastructure;

(b) has failed to abolish the Nation-Building Funds previously; and

(c) has sidelined Infrastructure Australia when making infrastructure investment decisions;

(5) the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been fully funded in a bipartisan fashion, and funding has been allocated to the NDIS in all Budgets since 2013-14 and bilateral agreements with the states that contain the Commonwealth Government's commitment to the full funding of the NDIS have been signed in a bipartisan manner;

(6) like all other items of Government expenditure, such as defence, the NDIS is funded from consolidated revenue and does not require a separate funding arrangement; and

(7) there is a better and fairer plan which would:

(a) only raise the Medicare Levy for those earning above $87,000 a year;

(b) reinstate the Budget Repair Levy for those earning above $180,000 a year; and

(c) ease the pressure on low and middle income workers, and be better for the budget bottom line."

No No Not passed by a small majority

How "voted very 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 1 50 50
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
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* 0 0 0
Total: 60 60

*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 = 60 / 60 = 100%.

And then