How Andrew Bartlett 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 Andrew Bartlett Supporters vote Division outcome

27th Mar 2018, 12:06 PM – Senate Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Gambling ads

Show detail

The majority voted against the amendments moved by Nick Xenophon Senator Stirling Griff, which means they failed.

Amendment text

Senator Griff explained that his amendments:

"These amendments fit within the regulatory framework proposed by the government in the bill and have the effect of a prohibition on all gambling ads during the hours of 5 am to 8.30 pm during G-rated programs and any live sporting events across platforms, regardless of whether the event is live or not. In instances where a sporting event has started but not finished before 8.30 pm, the NXT amendments will also extend the prohibition of gambling ads to 30 minutes after the conclusion of the sporting event."

Main idea of the bill

The bill was introduced to:

  • enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to make online content service provider rules which impose gambling promotions restrictions on online content service providers;
  • provide the ACMA with the power to determine program standards about gambling promotional content which apply to certain broadcasters and subscriptions providers; and
  • require the ACMA to monitor compliance with online content service provider rules.
Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

26th Mar 2018, 8:51 PM – Senate Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Prohibit betting on lottery outcome

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of an amendment to the usual second reading motion ("That this bill be read a second time").

Reading a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

Amendment text

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should legislate to prohibit betting on the outcome of a lottery."

Main idea of the bill

The bill was introduced to:

  • enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to make online content service provider rules which impose gambling promotions restrictions on online content service providers;
  • provide the ACMA with the power to determine program standards about gambling promotional content which apply to certain broadcasters and subscriptions providers; and
  • require the ACMA to monitor compliance with online content service provider rules.
Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

14th Feb 2018, 4:15 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Phase out poker machines

Show detail

The majority voted against this motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia is home to 0.3 per cent of the world's population, but 18 per cent of the world's poker machines,

(ii) Australians lose more money to poker machines than anywhere else in the world per capita,

(iii) most countries around the world, 226 out of 238, have no poker machines in pubs and clubs,

(iv) a 2010 study by the Productivity Commission found that problem gamblers account for 40 per cent of losses on poker machines,

(v) suicide rates among problem gamblers are twice the rate of other addictions, and

(vi) problem gamblers are far more vulnerable to depression, relationships breakdown, job loss, lowered work productivity, bankruptcy and crime;

(b) acknowledges that:

(i) poker machines have caused a significant degree of social and economic dislocation in the community, and

(ii) the regulation of poker machines is a litmus test of good government; and

(c) calls on the Government to support states in phasing out poker machines in pubs, because the fewer poker machines, the better.

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 1 50 50
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: 70 70

*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 = 70 / 70 = 100%.

And then