How Richard Di Natale voted compared to someone who believes that terminally ill people should be able to access medicinal cannabis products

Division Richard Di Natale Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Nov 2019, 12:02 PM – Senate Committees - Community Affairs References Committee - Reference

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Victorian Senator Richard Di Natale (Greens), which means the matter will be referred to a Committee.

You can follow the inquiry on the Committee website.

Motion text

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 February 2020:

The current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, including:

(a) the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime through the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) Special Access Scheme (SAS), Authorised Prescriber Scheme and clinical trials;

(b) the suitability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for subsidising patient access to medicinal cannabis products;

(c) the interaction between state and territory authorities and the Commonwealth, including overlap and variation between state and territory schemes;

(d) Australia's regulatory regime in comparison to international best practice models for medicinal cannabis regulation and patient access;

(e) the availability of training for doctors in the current TGA regulatory regime for prescribing medicinal cannabis to their patients;

(f) the education of doctors in the Endogenous Cannabinoid System (ECS), and the appropriateness of medicinal cannabis treatments for various indications;

(g) sources of information for doctors about uses of medicinal cannabis and how these might be improved and widened;

(h) delays in access, and the practice of product substitution, due to importation of medicinal cannabis and the shortage of Australian manufactured medicinal cannabis products;

(i) the current status of the domestic regulated medicinal cannabis industry;

(j) the impacts on the mental and physical wellbeing of those patients struggling to access medicinal cannabis through Australia's regulatory regime;

(k) the particular barriers for those in rural and remote areas in accessing medicinal cannabis legally;

(l) the significant financial barriers to accessing medicinal cannabis treatment;

(m) the number of Australian patients continuing to rely on unregulated supply of medicinal cannabis due to access barriers and the impacts associated with that; and

(n) any related matters.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

13th Jun 2017, 1:10 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016, which means that Regulation no longer has legal force. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Richard Di Natale.

What was the motion about?

The motion to disallow the Regulation was introduced in order to restore the ability of terminally ill patients to access medicinal cannabis products. Read more about the regulation in its explanatory memorandum and the arguments for its disallowance in the debate.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

13th Jun 2017, 1:04 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 - Vote on disallowance again

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the vote on whether to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 should be voted on again. This means that that vote can now take place again.

What was the vote?

Senator Di Natale explains what this disallowance would restore the ability of terminally ill patients to access medicinal cannabis products. Read more about the regulation in its explanatory memorandum and the arguments for its disallowance in the debate.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

11th May 2017 – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 - Disallow

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against a motion to disallow parts of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016, which means the motion was unsuccessful. It was introduced by Greens Senator Richard Di Natale.

What was the motion about?

The motion was to disallow parts of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016. If successful, it would have meant that those parts no longer had legal force.

Its purpose was to restore the ability of terminally ill patients to access medicinal cannabis products. Read more about the regulation in its explanatory memorandum and the arguments for its disallowance in the debate.

Motion text

That items 1 and 4 of Schedule 1 of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 and made under the Crimes Act 1914 and the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, be disallowed.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed

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 2 100 100
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 120 120

*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 = 120 / 120 = 100%.

And then