How Mehreen Faruqi voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase restrictions on the gambling industry in order to address the issue of problem gambling

Division Mehreen Faruqi Supporters vote Division outcome

29th Jul 2019, 4:03 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - A new inquiry

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) this month marks the 25th anniversary since the introduction of poker machines in pubs and clubs in South Australia,

(ii) despite numerous recommendations by the Commonwealth Productivity Commission (PC) and other inquiries, there has been no meaningful poker machine reform in terms of harm minimisation,

(iii) according to the PC's 2010 report into gambling, 15% of regular poker machine players are so-called 'problem gamblers' with approximately 40-60% of spending on poker machines coming from 'problem gamblers',

(iv) the PC's 2010 report highlighted the significant social cost of gambling–estimated at that time to be at least $4 billion,

(v) despite having only 0.3% of the world's population, Australia reportedly has 6% of the world's conventional gaming machines and 18% of its poker machines, and

(vi) Australians lose approximately $24 billion per year on gambling, a figure which is more than any other nation; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) recognise the ongoing harm gambling causes, which varies from emotional to financial costs, and commit to meaningful harm minimisation, and

(ii) instruct the Commonwealth Productivity Commission to conduct a new inquiry to provide an updated perspective on gambling and propose relevant recommendations.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

13th Feb 2019, 4:20 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Introduced restrictions

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Qld Senator Larissa Waters, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the gambling industry donated almost $3 million dollars to the Liberal, Labor and Australian Conservatives political parties in 2017-18,

(ii) these donations came from sports betting companies, casinos and poker machine operators,

(iii) the Australian Hotels Association was the second largest political donor in the country for the 2017-18 year, with declared political gifts leaping from $153,000 in 2016-17 to $1.1 million last financial year,

(iv) Australia has the world's worst per-capita gambling losses of $1,000 a head,

(v) there are at least 115,000 Australians at the moment who are directly and seriously harmed by gambling, and another 280,000 experiencing significant risk,

(vi) for every person directly harmed by gambling, between 5 and 10 friends, family and others, including employers, are also affected – this means that up to 5 million Australians could be negatively affected,

(vii) online wagering is the fastest growing gambling segment, with over $1.4 billion gambled online each year,

(viii) pokies cause the most harm, with three out of four people being harmed by gambling, principally using poker machines, and

(ix) enormous donations from the gambling lobby to the major political parties has resulted in consecutive Australian governments failing to support harm-minimisation reforms that would help protect people from predatory gambling; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban corporate donations from the gambling industry,

(ii) introduce evidence-based harm-minimisation and product safety measures to reduce the development of problem gambling, and to assist gamblers to limit their expenditure,

(iii) phase out poker machines, and, in the meantime, implement $1 maximum bets per spin, $20 machine load-up limits, and $500 jackpot limits, and mandatory pre-commitment for pokies and sports betting, and

(iv) ban sports betting advertisements during the broadcast of sporting events and children's viewing times.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 20 20

*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 = 20 / 20 = 100%.

And then