How John Faulkner voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase financial support for childcare and early childhood eduction by, for example, supporting increased wages for workers and providing grants for not-for-profit community child care initiatives

Division John Faulkner Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Mar 2009, 4:18 PM – Senate Motions - Child Care - Not-for-profit government-supported childcare

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young calling for the Government "to immediately make available capital grants funds and operational costs to assist not-for-profit child care providers in taking over the remaining centres".

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Government’s second prop-up of $34 million to keep ABC Learning operating until 31 March 2009, is due to expire in 2 weeks time, and

(ii) of the 241 failed centres due to be sold or closed, to date only 65 have been sold;

(b) recognises that this crisis represents an opportunity for child care in Australia to be transformed from a market-driven industry to a vital community service and a government-supported first step in lifelong learning; and

(c) calls on the Government to immediately make available capital grants funds and operational costs to assist not-for-profit child care providers in taking over the remaining centres.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

13th Sep 2006, 3:44 PM – Senate Motions - Child Care - Increase wages for workers

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that called for the Government "to address the wages paid to child care workers before supplementing the salary advantages paid to politicians". The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Bob Brown.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes, with concern:

(i) that child care workers remain among the lowest paid Australians, earning as little as $541 per week,

(ii) that women working in child care are likely to accumulate some of the lowest levels of superannuation in Australia,

(iii) that a politician who entered parliament at the 2004 election, aged 30, and who retires at 65 would have received a superannuation lump sum of $670 211 but would now receive a lump sum of $1 117 000 under the new 15 per cent contribution regime, and

(iv) the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that low wages adversely affect the gene pool of those drawn to particular occupations; and

(b) calls on the Government to address the wages paid to child care workers before supplementing the salary advantages paid to politicians.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

How "voted strongly against" 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 0 0 0
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 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 1 12

*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 = 1 / 12 = 8.3%.

And then