How David Fawcett voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should establish a Royal Commission to investigate and report on violence and abuse against people with disability in light of the the disproportionately high number of reports of abuse of Australians with a disability by people who are meant to care for them

Division David Fawcett Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Sep 2018, 4:47 PM – Senate Motions - Aged Care - Royal Commission and people with disability

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John (WA), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) on 16 September 2018, the Prime Minister announced a royal commission into Australia's Aged Care system, ahead of the ABC's Four Corners report on the treatment of older Australians in aged care homes,

(ii) the media has extensively reported on violence, abuse, and neglect against people with disability,

(iii) the Community Affairs References Committee held an inquiry into violence, abuse, and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings during the 44th Parliament,

(iv) on 25 November 2015, the Community Affairs References Committee tabled its report containing 30 recommendations, the headline recommendation calling for a royal commission into the issue,

(v) on 2 March 2017, the Government responded to the recommendations in this report, where it refused to commit to a royal commission,

(vi) in May 2017, more than 120 academics from around Australia signed an open letter urging the Prime Minister to act on the headline recommendation of the Senate inquiry, and a civil society statement from Disabled People's Organisations Australia and endorsed by 163 organisations and groups and over 380 individuals called for a royal commission, and

(vii) on 4 December 2018, the Senate passed a motion calling on the Government to reconsider its decision and commit to a royal commission into violence, abuse, and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential settings; and

(b) calls on the Government to extend the Royal Commission into Aged Care to include violence, abuse, and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

29th Mar 2017, 4:14 PM – Senate Motions - Institutional Care - For a royal commission

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that called for a royal commission into abuse, violence and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential settings.

The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert (WA).

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 27 March 2017, the ABC's Four Corners program clearly showed that abuse, violence and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential care continues,

(ii) previous evidence of severe abuse, violence and neglect was revealed by the media and during an inquiry of the Community Affairs References Committee,

(iii) on 25 November 2015, the Community Affairs References Committee tabled a report in the Senate with 30 recommendations addressing widespread instances of abuse, violence and neglect of people with disability in residential and institutional settings, and

(iv) the Government responded to the recommendations in this report on 2 March 2017, where they refused to commit to a royal commission into the issue; and

(b) calls on the Government to reconsider its decision and commit to a royal commission into abuse, violence and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential settings.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted a mixture of for and 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 0 0 0
MP absent 1 25 50
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 25 60

*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 = 25 / 60 = 42%.

And then