How Raff Ciccone 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 Raff Ciccone Supporters vote Division outcome

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

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) this month marks the 25th anniversary since the introduction of poker machines in pubs and clubs in South Australia,

(ii) despite numerous recommendations by the Commonwealth Productivity Commission (PC) and other inquiries, there has been no meaningful poker machine reform in terms of harm minimisation,

(iii) according to the PC's 2010 report into gambling, 15% of regular poker machine players are so-called 'problem gamblers' with approximately 40-60% of spending on poker machines coming from 'problem gamblers',

(iv) the PC's 2010 report highlighted the significant social cost of gambling–estimated at that time to be at least $4 billion,

(v) despite having only 0.3% of the world's population, Australia reportedly has 6% of the world's conventional gaming machines and 18% of its poker machines, and

(vi) Australians lose approximately $24 billion per year on gambling, a figure which is more than any other nation; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) recognise the ongoing harm gambling causes, which varies from emotional to financial costs, and commit to meaningful harm minimisation, and

(ii) instruct the Commonwealth Productivity Commission to conduct a new inquiry to provide an updated perspective on gambling and propose relevant recommendations.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Raff Ciccone was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.