How Nigel Scullion voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should invest in climate science to ensure that Australia is best equipped to deal with the challenges of climate change

Division Nigel Scullion Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Sep 2017, 11:48 AM – Senate Motions - Climate Science - Commends and notes research

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that accurate climate and meteorological forecasting prior to, and during, the recent Atlantic hurricanes allowed for evacuations and emergency management that saved lives,

(ii) a recent article in The Economist which stated that while the number of extreme climate and weather-related emergencies have increased due to climate change, the fall in the number of fatalities is partly attributable to improved climate and weather forecasting,

(iii) that the Trump Administration has proposed cuts to agencies responsible for climate and meteorological forecasting, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and

(iv) that Australia has a world-class climate science and meteorological community;

(b) nevertheless, notes that the Australian Academy of Science's 2017 Climate Science Capability Review found that climate science and meteorological efforts are under-resourced, poorly coordinated and subject to short-term funding cycles;

(c) further notes that various climate agencies in Australia, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, have faced ongoing funding pressure;

(d) commends the work of Australia's climate agencies and researchers; and

(e) notes the recommendations of Australian Academy of Science's 2017 Climate Science Capability Review, particularly funding an additional 77 climate science researchers, and ensuring continued capability in the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

absent Yes Passed by a small majority

14th Feb 2008, 10:22 AM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Reverse decision to cut funding

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) in December 2007, the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, said that the government believe that ‘climate change represents one of the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenges of our age’,

(ii) on 6 February 2008, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tanner, announced funding cuts to climate-related programs, including $3 million from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Research Vessel Southern Surveyor, $6 million from the Biodiversity Hotspots program and $42 million from the Renewable Remote Power Generation program, and

(iii) in 2007, the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney calculated that perverse subsidies supporting fossil fuel industries amounted to between $6.4billion and $7.2billion in the 2005-06 financial year; and

(b) calls on the Government to phase out perverse subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and to reverse its decision to cut funding to research into climate change science and renewable energy programs.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

How "voted 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 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 1 12

*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 = 1 / 12 = 8.3%.

And then