How David Leyonhjelm voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce mandatory drug testing for people who receive certain welfare payments

Division David Leyonhjelm Supporters vote Division outcome

7th Dec 2017, 5:59 PM – Senate Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of the bill's main idea, which means that they can now discuss the bill in more detail. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

The bill was introduced to:

  • create a single job seeker payment
  • establish a drug testing trial and
  • remove existing exemptions for jobseekers experiencing drug or alcohol dependence.
Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

14th Jun 2017, 4:09 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Abandon drug testing income support

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by WA Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the drug testing trial of 5,000 people applying for income support announced in the 2017-18 budget,

(ii) that the Government may require an exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to enact this measure,

(iii) that, in 2013, a position paper by The Australian National Council on Drugs, found there would be serious ethical and legal problems with implementing a drug testing program for income support recipients in Australia,

(iv) that both the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada stepped away from proposals for drug testing income support recipients because it was rejected by experts as being discriminatory or imposing unfair conditionality, and

(v) that, from 2011 to 2014, only two people out of 108 408 tested in Arizona, USA had a positive drug test; and

(b) calls on the Government to abandon this budget measure.

No No Not passed by a large 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