Senators agreed to keep schedule 1 of the bill as it was (without amendments).
Bridget McKenzie voted very strongly for the Intervention in the Northern Territory
How Bridget McKenzie voted compared to someone who believes that the Federal Government should respond to reports about high levels of child sexual abuse in some Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory by introducing the Northern Territory National Emergency Response or the very similar Stronger Futures Policy, also referred to as "the intervention"
| Division | Bridget McKenzie | Supporters vote | Division outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
28th Jun 2012, 11:07 PM – Senate Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Leave schedule 1 as it isShow detail |
Yes | Yes | Passed by a modest majority |
28th Jun 2012, 2:13 AM – Senate Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 - Third Reading - Pass the billShow detailSenators voted to pass the bill. |
Yes | Yes (strong) | Passed by a modest majority |
28th Jun 2012, 12:57 AM – Senate Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Agree to Australian Greens amendments reducing sunset clause periodsShow detailSenators voted against reducing sunset clause periods from 10 to 5 years, as proposed in Australian Greens amendments 4, 17 and 20. |
No | No | Not passed by a large majority |
28th Jun 2012, 12:01 AM – Senate Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Leave schedule 2 as it isShow detailSenators agreed to keep schedule 2 of the bill as it was (without amendments). |
Yes | Yes | Passed by a large 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 | 1 | 50 | 50 |
| MP voted against policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MP absent | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Less important votes (10 points) | |||
| MP voted with policy | 3 | 30 | 30 |
| MP voted against policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Less important absentees (2 points) | |||
| MP absent* | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total: | 80 | 80 | |
|
*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 = 80 / 80 = 100%.
And then
- between 95% and 100% becomes "very strongly for"
- between 85% and 95% becomes "strongly for"
- between 60% and 85% becomes "moderately for"
- between 40% and 60% becomes "a mixture of for and against"
- between 15% and 40% becomes "moderately against"
- between 5.0% and 15% becomes "strongly against"
- between 0.0% and 5.0% becomes "very strongly against"