How Stephen Parry 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 Stephen Parry Supporters vote Division outcome

5th Mar 2014, 12:27 PM – Senate Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 — In Committee — Keep schedule 1 (on gambling) unchanged

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that schedule 1 stand as printed.(The wording of schedule 1 is available here under the heading "Text of bill". ) In other words, the majority wanted the schedule to remain unchanged. The motion was put in response to a Green amendment to oppose that schedule.

Schedule 1: "repeals the position and functions of the National Gambling Regulator, along with provisions relating to the supervisory and gaming machine regulation levies, the automatic teller machine withdrawal limit, dynamic warning messages on gaming machines, the trial of mandatory pre-commitment, and matters for Productivity Commission review".(Read more about Schedule 1 in the revised explanatory memorandum. )

Because the majority wanted the schedule to remain unchanged, this Greens amendment was rejected.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to make a number of key changes. These include:

There are several other measures introduced by this bill that can be explored in its bills digest.

Most of the measures are savings measures that had been announced by the previous Labor Government in the 2013–14 Budget, the 2012–13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) or the 2012–13 Budget. However, the gambling reform measures, the Cape York Welfare Reform measures and the changes to Paid Parental Leave arrangements(Read about the changes to Paid Parental Leave arrangements in the bills digest.) are newly proposed by the current Government.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

9th Feb 2012, 12:55 PM – Senate Documents — Gambling; Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

Senator Richard Di Natale, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, moved:

That there be laid on the table by 27 February 2012 by the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Senator Evans) any advice or documentation received by the Government regarding the cost of implementing $1 bet limits on poker machines, particularly in relation to the $1.5 billion figure referred to by the Minister in public comments.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest 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 3 0 150
MP absent 0 0 0
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* 1 1 2
Total: 1 162

*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 = 1 / 162 = 0.62%.

And then