How Steve Hutchins voted compared to someone who believes that The federal government should continue to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) to fund chaplains in Australian primary and secondary schools

Division Steve Hutchins Supporters vote Division outcome

25th Nov 2009, 4:25 PM – Senate Motions - National School Chaplaincy Program - Continue program

Show detail

The majority agreed with Liberal Senator Guy Barnett's motion that the National School Chaplaincy Program should be continued.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the National School Chaplaincy Program (the program) was introduced by the former Coalition Government in the 2007-08 financial year with a commitment of $165 million for its first 3 years,

(ii) the program offers pastoral care, spiritual guidance and counselling in a range of areas such as bullying, mental health, family relationships and drug and alcohol abuse, operates in 2 700 schools and enjoys strong support among principals, schools and in the community generally,

(iii) the Coalition has announced that if elected, it will continue funding the program at present levels on an ongoing basis,

(iv) the Government has been forced to respond and has extended funding for the program, at a reduced level, for another year until the end of 2011, after which time there may be no more funding despite the program’s social benefits, sound administration and strong community support, and

(v) the Government’s announcement does not go far enough and does not allow for any new chaplains to be engaged and, as a result, does not provide certainty into the future for chaplains; and therefore

(b) calls on the Government to make a commitment to extend the program to new schools that apply for a chaplain and to maintain current levels of funding into the future on an ongoing basis.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "voted very 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 1 0 50
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: 0 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 = 0 / 50 = 0.0%.

And then