How Larissa Waters 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 Larissa Waters Supporters vote Division outcome

12th Feb 2019, 5:59 PM – Senate Motions - In Home Care Program - Emergency relief required

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by NSW Senator Mehreen Faruqi (Greens), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't change the law on their own but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) changes to the In Home Childcare Program, including to the hourly rate cap, have had the unintended consequence of leaving hundreds of families with complex childcare needs without affordable childcare which affects their ability to work, attend medical appointments and respite,

(ii) this group includes parents and carers with significant medical problems, including terminal illness and mental health issues, as well as children with developmental delays and severe disabilities, and

(iii) although some of these families have transitioned to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, many have not;

(b) recognises that, although there were problems with the In Home Childcare Program, some families with complex needs are facing a childcare crisis as a result of the changes;

(c) further notes that numerous providers have been forced to close as a result, and a large number of carers have been left without job; and

(d) calls on the Federal Government to provide emergency funding for sufficient childcare subsidies to high-needs families affected by the change and to provide a long-term solution to this issue.

Yes Yes Passed by a small 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 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 10 10

*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 = 10 / 10 = 100%.

And then