How Skye Kakoschke-Moore 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 Skye Kakoschke-Moore Supporters vote Division outcome

29th Mar 2017, 4:24 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Apply the National Consumer Protection Framework

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Nick Xenophon Team Skye Kakoschke-Moore that called for "the Government to develop and apply the National Consumer Protection Framework to land-based betting, as well as online gambling", which means the motion failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the National Consumer Protection Framework, in relation to interactive gambling, is currently being developed,

(ii) Commonwealth, state and territory gambling ministers are meeting regarding the Framework on 31 March 2017,

(iii) the Framework is being developed as a response to the O'Farrell Review and that gaming ministers are aiming to develop a better harm–minimisation strategy around online services,

(iv) currently, harm–minimisation strategies are a matter for states and territories, despite the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) (IGA) regulating electronic gambling,

(v) there is no national gambling regulator and the Nick Xenophon Team's amendment to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, to establish a national regulator, was rejected by the Government,

(vi) the Framework will not apply to land-based betting,

(vii) land-based betting includes electronic betting terminals (EBTs) which are permitted under the IGA but harm–minimisation strategies are regulated by states and territories,

(viii) statistics show at least 400,000 Australians either have a significant gambling addiction or are showing signs of developing a problem – the Productivity Commission has also stated that every problem gambler impacts on average on seven other people, and

(ix) the harm caused by gambling, such as financial hardship, relationship breakdown and emotional harm is the same, regardless of what form of gambling the harm arises from; and

(b) calls on the Government to develop and apply the National Consumer Protection Framework to land-based betting, as well as online gambling.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

12th Sep 2016, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Against gambling advertising

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which means it was unsuccessful.

The motion was introduced by Nick Xenophon Team Senator Stirling Griff. It asked for gambling advertising to be banned during children's viewing times and to be reduced on SBS.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) more than $800 million was lost by Australians on legal sports betting in the 2014-15 financial year, an increase of more than 30 per cent from 2013-14,

(ii) while some restrictions on gambling advertising exist, there is an exemption that allows gambling advertising during televised sporting events at children's viewing times,

(iii) research shows that children are especially susceptible to such advertising, and

(iv) there is a pressing need to ban gambling advertising particularly during children's viewing times;

(b) calls on the Government to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to ban gambling advertising during sporting broadcasts during children's viewing times; and

(c) further notes community concern about the recent increased level of gambling advertising on the Special Broadcasting Service, and calls on the Minister for Communications to issue a directive under section 11 of the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to limit the amount of such advertising.

Yes Yes (strong) 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 2 100 100
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
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: 100 100

*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 = 100 / 100 = 100%.

And then