Peter Whish-Wilson voted consistently against Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs)
How Peter Whish-Wilson voted compared to someone who agrees that the police should be able to detain people without charge for a limited period if there is a threat of a terrorist attack or if it is likely that vital evidence will be lost after a terrorist attack takes place
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs)” which Peter Whish-Wilson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peter Whish-Wilson on this policy.
| Division | Peter Whish-Wilson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th Nov 2023, 12:22 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
No | Yes |
12th Aug 2021, 12:53 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
No | Yes |
16th Aug 2018, 11:38 AM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
No | Yes |
28th Oct 2014, 9:10 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 - In Committee - Extend sunset clauses |
No | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs)” which Peter Whish-Wilson could have attended.
| Division | Peter Whish-Wilson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
8th Nov 2016, 7:24 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea |
No | Yes |
How "voted consistently against" is worked out
They Vote For You gives each vote a score based on whether the MP voted in agreement with the policy or not. These scores are then averaged with a weighting across all votes that the MP could have voted on relevant to the policy. The overall average score is then converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.
When an MP votes in agreement with a policy the vote is scored as 100%. When they vote against the policy it is scored as 0% and when they are absent it is scored half way between the two at 50%. The half way point effectively says "we don't know whether they are for or against this policy".
The overall agreement score for the policy is worked out by a weighted average of the scores for each vote. The weighting has been chosen so that the most important votes have a weighting 5 times that of the less important votes. Also, absent votes on less important votes are weighted 5 times less again to not penalise MPs for not attending the less important votes. Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always mean they've abstained.
| Type of vote | Agreement score (s) | Weight (w) | No of votes (n) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most important votes | MP voted with policy | 100% | 25 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 25 | 4 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 25 | 0 | |
| Less important votes | MP voted with policy | 100% | 5 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 5 | 1 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 1 | 0 | |
The final agreement score is a weighted average (weighted arithmetic mean) of the scores of the individual votes.
Average agreement score = sum(n×w×s) / sum(n×w) = 0.0 / 105 = 0%.
And then this average agreement score
- between 95% and 100% becomes "voted consistently for"
- between 85% and 95% becomes "voted almost always for"
- between 60% and 85% becomes "voted generally for"
- between 40% and 60% becomes "voted a mixture of for and against"
- between 15% and 40% becomes "voted generally against"
- between 5% and 15% becomes "voted almost always against"
- between 0% and 5% becomes "voted consistently against"