How Katy Gallagher voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase investment in renewable energy technologies

Division Katy Gallagher Supporters vote Division outcome

8th Feb 2018, 12:11 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Against Adani

Show detail

The majority voted against this motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes, with concern, that the Adani Group (Adani) is on the record blatantly misrepresenting the number of jobs its polluting Carmichael coal mine would create;

(b) condemns Adani's deception in inflating its jobs figures sevenfold, until it was forced under oath to reveal that the true figure is in fact 1,464 direct and indirect jobs over the life of the project, rather than the 10 000 claimed;

(c) further notes that the carbon pollution from Adani's mine would significantly contribute to dangerous global warming, further endangering the Great Barrier Reef and the 70 000 jobs that rely on it; and

(d) asserts that, rather than relying on a polluting, deceitful company to provide jobs for Queenslanders, federal and state Governments should invest in renewable energy, service industries and manufacturing as the best drivers of Queensland jobs.

absent Yes Not passed by a large majority

8th Feb 2018, 12:05 PM – Senate Motions - Defence Industry - Do not support

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the Australian Government's plans to make Australia one of the top ten weapons manufacturers globally, raising us from the 20th to the 10th spot, and

(ii) the dangerous and destructive effects of the global arms trade in fuelling conflicts;

(b) re-affirms the comments of World Vision CEO, Mr Tim Costello, that Australia will be "exporting death and profiting from bloodshed";

(c) condemns the fact that the Government plans to loan $3 billion to arms manufacturers, which is equal to Australia's entire foreign aid budget, which has suffered $11 billion in cuts since 2014, and follows attempts by the Government to cut $2 billion from higher education; and

(d) calls on the Government to cease immediately this plan to turn Australia into a mercenary nation of arms dealers, and instead use the funds to revitalise our manufacturing industry around renewable energy, electric cars, advanced medical technology and education services.

absent Yes Not passed by a large majority

12th Sep 2017, 4:12 PM – Senate Motions - Renewable Energy - Against target and subsidies

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Senator David Leyonhjelm, which means the motion failed.

Motion text

That the Senate agrees that—

(a) the renewable energy target should not continue beyond 2023;

(b) no scheme to subsidise renewable energy generation or mandate a particular market share for renewable energy generation should replace it; and

(c) renewable energy projects not already approved by the Clean Energy Regulator be ineligible to receive subsidies via renewable energy certificates.

No No Not passed by a large majority

5th Sep 2017, 5:02 PM – Senate Motions - Energy - Coal not clean

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion: That the Senate does not consider coal-fired power to be clean.

This motion was introduced by WA Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens) also on behalf of Victorian Senator Richard Di Natale (Greens).

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

15th Sep 2016, 11:35 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time.

Since the bill's already passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

What does this bill do?

This bill does a lot of work! It crosses eight different portfolios, from Education to the Treasury. Read more about it in the bills digest.

For example, the bill:

Yes No Passed by a modest majority

15th Sep 2016, 10:27 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - in Committee - ARENA

Show detail
Yes No Passed by a modest majority

15th Sep 2016, 9:25 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree to the main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time. In other words, they agreed with the main idea of the bill and will now discuss it in more detail.

What does this bill do?

This bill does a lot of work! It crosses eight different portfolios, from Education to the Treasury. Read more about it in the bills digest.

For example, the bill:

Yes No Passed by a modest majority

15th Sep 2016, 9:12 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - ARENA funding

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add:

, but the Senate condemns this bill for ripping $500 million from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency's clean energy innovation grants as a dangerous and irresponsible act of sabotage, especially in a climate emergency and global transition to clean energy, and because it leaves the Coalition and Labor parties with no meaningful plan to meet Australia's Renewable Energy Target and pollution reduction target agreed at the Paris climate conference.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

3rd May 2016, 4:02 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Australian Renewable Energy Agency

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that called for the Senate to resolve that funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) won't be reduced. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) how well positioned Australia is to take advantage of the huge jobs and commercial opportunities from investing in research and development in clean energy technologies,

(ii) That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) is the institution that will enable us to be global leaders in clean technology innovation, and

(iii) That the 2014 Budget proposed $1.3 billion in cuts to ARENA for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 which have so far been blocked but which have caused considerable uncertainty for ARENA; and

(b) resolves That the $1.5 billion of currently legislated funding for ARENA for the financial years 2016-17 to 2021-22 will not be reduced.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

17th Mar 2016, 12:39 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Support a rapid transition to clean energy

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. It called for the government to stop supporting new coal mining developments and start supporting a rapid transition to clean energy.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, stated on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Q&A program that Australia is 'losing the battle' against global warming,

(ii) Professor Terry Hughes has told 'The Conversation' that Australia can either develop new coal mines or protect the Great Barrier Reef, but 'we can't possibly do both',

(iii) coral bleaching caused by global warming has already caused the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to raise its bleaching alert to Level 2, and the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has upgraded its Coral Reef Watch warning for the far northern Great Barrier Reef to Alert Level 2, the highest threat level, and

(iv) the mining and burning of coal is driving dangerous global warming which threatens the Great Barrier Reef; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to abandon its support for the Adani mega coal mine and Abbot Point coal port expansion, and support a rapid transition to 100 per cent clean energy as soon as possible, and at least 90 per cent clean energy by 2030.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

9th Sep 2015, 4:28 PM – Senate Motions - Newcastle City Council Investment Policies - Environmental investment

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Newcastle City Council recently passed an update to its investment policies that notes the Council's preference for environmentally and socially responsible investment, and notes reports that this policy will see the Council shift its investments away from coal and fossil fuels,

(ii) the decision has been heavily criticised by the Minister for Industry and Science (Mr Macfarlane), despite warnings from scientists that Australia must act to stave off catastrophic climate change, and

(iii) an opinion poll conducted after the Council's decision found that only one in four Newcastle residents think investing in coal is financially safe; and

(b) congratulates the Newcastle City Council on updating its investment policy and joining councils across New South Wales, such as Lake Macquarie City Council, Willoughby Council, the City of Sydney, Marrickville Council, Leichhardt Council and Lismore City Council, in adopting policies regarding environmentally and socially responsible investment.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

23rd Jun 2015, 11:03 PM – Senate Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill (in parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time).

Purpose of the bill

The bill amends the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme by, for example, reducing the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) and replacing the requirement for two-yearly reviews of the operation of the RET scheme with annual statements by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER). Further detail is available in the bills digest.

Read more on ABC News.

Yes No Passed by a modest majority

17th Jun 2015, 6:02 PM – Senate Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill's main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time).

Main idea of the bill

The bill amends the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme by, for example, reducing the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) and replacing the requirement for two-yearly reviews of the operation of the RET scheme with annual statements by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER). Further detail is available in the bills digest.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

How "voted moderately against" 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 6 60 60
MP voted against policy 10 0 100
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 4 4 8
Total: 64 168

*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 = 64 / 168 = 38%.

And then