How Tim Hammond voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should fund and maintain the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, as an independent body that manages the government's renewable energy programs

Division Tim Hammond Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Sep 2016, 11:17 AM – Representatives Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - Consideration in Detail - Maintain Australian Renewable Energy Agency funding

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to delete Schedule 5 from the bill, which means it was unsuccessful and that Schedule 5 will remain in the bill.

What does this schedule do?

The purpose of Schedule 5 is to reduce funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. According to the bills digest, this:

giv[es] effect to the Government’s policy to discontinue providing grants for renewable energy research and development in favour of a limited new loans and equity investment scheme known as the Clean Energy Innovation Fund

Motion text

(1) Schedule 5, page 18 (lines 1 to 7), omit the Schedule.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a large 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 Tim Hammond 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.