How Bob Day voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should put a large proportion of a person's welfare payment onto a debit card that cannot be used for alcohol or gambling and cannot be used to make cash withdrawals

Division Bob Day Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Sep 2016, 6:49 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area — East Kimberley) Determination 2016 - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to disallow the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination 2016, which means it was unsuccessful and the Determination will remain law. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert.

What does this mean?

Senator Siewert proposed to stop the Determination from having legal force, so that it was no longer law.

The explanatory statement explains that the Determination introduced a debit card trial that:

will test the concept of cashless welfare arrangements by disbursing particular welfare payments to a welfare restricted bank account, accessed by a debit card which does not allow cash withdrawals.

Motion text

That the Senate disallow the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination 2016.

absent No Not passed by a modest majority

23rd Feb 2016, 6:36 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations — Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area – Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination 2015; Disallowance

Show detail

The majority of the Senate voted not to overturn the regulations made for the Act which created the welfare debit card trial. This means that the welfare debit card trial will continue as planned.

In parliamentary jargon, the majority voted against a disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area – Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination 2015. A disallowance is where either house of Parliament can veto delegated legislation (which is legislation created by the executive, not by Parliament).

absent No Not passed by a modest majority

14th Oct 2015, 6:02 PM – Senate Bills — Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015; Third Reading

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of passing the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read it for a third time.

What does this bill do?

People receiving working-age welfare payments in certain areas would have 80% of their payments placed onto a debit card and 20% of their payments paid in cash. The debit card would not allow cash withdrawal or spending on gambling or alcohol.

For more details, see this article from the ABC.

Yes Yes Passed by a modest majority

14th Oct 2015, 10:08 AM – Senate Bills — Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015; Second Reading

Show detail

The majority voted to read the bill a second time in the Senate.

This means that the majority of members accepted the main idea of the bill, so it will be considered further.

What does this bill do?

People receiving working-age welfare payments in certain areas would have 80% of their payments placed onto a debit card and 20% of their payments paid in cash. The debit card would not allow cash withdrawal or spending on gambling or alcohol.

For more details, see this article from the ABC.

Yes Yes Passed by a modest majority

How "voted 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* 2 2 4
Total: 22 24

*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 = 22 / 24 = 92%.

And then