How Bridget McKenzie voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase restrictions on the gambling industry in order to address the issue of problem gambling

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which Bridget McKenzie could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bridget McKenzie on this policy.

Division Bridget McKenzie Supporters vote

27th Mar 2018, 12:06 PM – Senate Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Gambling ads

absent Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which Bridget McKenzie could have attended.

Division Bridget McKenzie Supporters vote

8th Oct 2024, 3:46 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling Advertising - Ban

absent Yes

14th Aug 2024, 4:40 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Gambling Advertising - Ban

absent Yes

29th Jul 2019, 4:03 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - A new inquiry

absent Yes

13th Feb 2019, 4:20 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Introduced restrictions

absent Yes

26th Mar 2018, 8:51 PM – Senate Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Prohibit betting on lottery outcome

absent Yes

14th Feb 2018, 4:15 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Phase out poker machines

absent Yes

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

No Yes

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

No Yes

22nd Sep 2014, 6:08 PM – Senate Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Interactive Gambling Act and ACMA

Yes No

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

Yes No

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

absent Yes

How "voted generally 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 0
MP absent 50% 25 1
Less important votes MP voted with policy 100% 5 0
MP voted against policy 0% 5 4
MP absent 50% 1 7

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) = 16.0 / 52 = 31%.

And then this average agreement score