Photo of Susan Lamb

Susan Lamb voted very strongly for a Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with Disability

How Susan Lamb voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should establish a Royal Commission to investigate and report on violence and abuse against people with disability in light of the the disproportionately high number of reports of abuse of Australians with a disability by people who are meant to care for them

Division Susan Lamb Supporters vote Division outcome

21st Jun 2017, 5:35 PM – Representatives National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with Disability

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Labor MP for Jagajaga Jenny Macklin, which means the motion failed. The motion didn't change the bill in any way but instead asked for the Government to establish a Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with Disability.

Motion text

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that people with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the rest of the community, and in many cases, this violence occurs in places where they are meant to be receiving support;

(2) notes that children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children;

(3) condemns the Government's decision to reject a Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with disability;

(4) notes that, contrary to the Government's claims, NDIS Quality and Safeguards will not negate the need for a Royal Commission into abuse of people with disability; and

(5) calls on the Turnbull Government to establish a Royal Commission so that people with disability, their families and carers can tell their stories to the highest level of judicial inquiry and seek justice".

 Yes Yes (strong) 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 50 50

*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 = 50 / 50 = 100%.

And then