How John Williams voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should be required to seek the consent of local communities before selecting new sites for radioactive waste disposal

Division John Williams Supporters vote Division outcome

22nd Aug 2018, 5:01 PM – Senate Motions - Nuclear Waste - Consult with Native Title Holders

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA), which means the motion failed.

Motion text

That the Senate:

(a) notes that communities in Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Port Pirie are seriously concerned they have no opportunity to participate in the ballot process to determine the extent of broad community support for the proposed nuclear waste dump in Kimba or Hawker;

(b) further notes that, if the site selection process is successful, these communities will see their roads, streets and waters become thoroughfares for low and intermediate level nuclear material for decades to come; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to broaden the community consultation process to include disenfranchised Barngarla Native Title Holders, and communities living along proposed transportation routes, so that all affected communities have their chance to have their say.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

22nd Feb 2016, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions - Radioactive Waste - Disposal

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by West Australian Senator Scott Ludlam (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Australian Government has initiated a voluntary site selection process for a national radioactive waste facility,

(ii) consecutive ministers have confirmed that such a facility would not proceed against the wishes of host communities,

(iii) six sites have been selected for further assessment for shortlisting, including Hill End in New South Wales, Omanama in Queensland, Hale in the Northern Territory, Cortlinye, Pinkawillinie and Barndioota in South Australia, and

(iv) strong local opposition clearly exists at all six sites currently under consideration; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) acknowledge the opposition and lack of community support at all six sites,

(ii) respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent, and remove all six sites from further consideration,

(iii) initiate a genuinely independent inquiry to investigate long-term stewardship options for spent fuel, reprocessing waste, and other categories of radioactive waste, including drawing on international examples and experience,

(iv) investigate options for active waste minimisation, including increased use of non-reactor based methods for radioisotope production, and

(v) clearly reaffirm policy and legislative prohibitions on the importation and disposal of international radioactive waste.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted very strongly 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 2 0 20
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 20

*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 = 0 / 20 = 0.0%.

And then