How David Fawcett voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should create and coordinate a National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse, which was recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

Division David Fawcett Supporters vote Division outcome

15th Sep 2016, 12:50 PM – Senate Motions - National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse - Create and consult

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to create a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional sexual abuse.

Motions like these don't have any legal force (so it can't create a redress scheme by itself), but represent the opinion of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) recognises the immense suffering of survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and that survivors may be affected by the abuse for their whole lives;

(b) acknowledges that 14 September 2016 marks the one year anniversary of the final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse;

(c) calls on the Federal Government to establish a National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse, following recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which include:

(i) the creation of a single national redress scheme, coordinated by the Federal Government, and not outsourcing responsibility to the states, and

(ii) the provision of counselling and financial redress with costs met by the institutions responsible for the perpetrators of the abuse;

(d) notes that:

(i) the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended the Government announce a national redress scheme by the end of 2015 and proceed without delay, and

(ii) the Government did not meet this recommended deadline and any further delay puts at risk the recommended start date of 1 July 2017; and

(e) recommends that the Federal Government consult extensively on further details of a national redress scheme to ensure that it fully meets the ongoing and complex needs of survivors and their families.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

14th Sep 2016, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Child Sexual Abuse - National redress scheme

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) recognises that:

(i) the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released its report on Redress and civil litigation on 14 September 2015, and

(ii) the report recommended:

(A) the establishment of a single national redress scheme as preferable to state-based schemes,

(B) the institution in which the abuse occurred should fund redress,

(C) that state, territory and Commonwealth governments should act as funders of last resort, and

(D) that a single national redress scheme, or state-based schemes, should be in place by 1 July 2017;

(b) notes that:

(i) the Coalition has not yet committed to providing funding of last resort, and

(ii) less than a year from the recommended start date, there is no clear plan for national redress scheme; and

(c) calls on the Coalition to commit meaningfully to a national redress scheme, with the Commonwealth Government providing funding of last resort

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 2 0 100
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: 0 100

*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 / 100 = 0.0%.

And then