How Lee Rhiannon voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should ban both direct and indirect (e.g. through parent companies) investment in cluster munitions

Division Lee Rhiannon Supporters vote Division outcome

21st Aug 2012, 1:44 PM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Ban investment

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam (WA), which means it was unsuccessful.

What did this amendment do?

This amendment would ban investment in "the development or production of cluster munitions or explosive submunitions". As Senator Ludlam explained:

The bill should explicitly ban investment because it assists with a prohibited act. I struggle to see how that could be a controversial statement. Many other countries specifically ban direct and indirect investment in cluster munitions in their legislation. By 'indirect' we mean an investment in a parent company that may, through a company that it has a holding in, in fact be manufacturing components or manufacturing cluster weapons themselves.

What is this bill?

The bill will bring the Convention on Cluster Munitions into Australian law by, for example, creating offences in relation to cluster munitions and explosive bomblets.

Read more in the bills digest.

Amendment text

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 29), after subsection 72.38(2), insert:

(2A) An entity regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority commits an offence if it directly or indirectly:

(a) provides funds to a person or an entity; or

(b) invests funds in an entity;

involved in the development or production of cluster munitions or explosive submunitions.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

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 1 50 50
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 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 50 50

*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 = 50 / 50 = 100%.

And then