How George Brandis voted compared to someone who believes that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators should vote to speed things along by supporting motions to 'put the question' (known as 'closure' or 'gag' motions), which require Parliament to immediately vote on a question rather than debating it any further

Division George Brandis Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Oct 2017, 12:45 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Citizenship (Authorisation) Revocation and Authorisation Instrument 2017 and another; Disallowance - Speed things along

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against putting the question.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

19th Oct 2017, 11:42 AM – Senate Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Speed things along

Show detail

The majority voted against speeding things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against a motion to put the question. Because this motion was unsuccessful, debate continued.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a large majority

1st Dec 2016, 8:42 PM – Senate Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 - Third Reading - Speed things along

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

1st Dec 2016, 8:38 PM – Senate Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 - Second Reading - Speed things along

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

1st Dec 2016, 8:30 PM – Senate Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2) - Third Reading - Speeding things along

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

17th Mar 2016, 12:01 PM – Senate Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Speed things along

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to stop debate and vote on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against a motion that the question now be put.

Because the motion failed, debate will continue.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

2nd Mar 2016, 12:05 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Liberal Senator George Brandis:

The question is that the question be now put.

This is a 'closure of debate' motion, which means it ends debate on a particular question so that the Senate can vote immediately on it. Basically, this motion is to speed things along.

What was the question?

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to this bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Read more about that motion and about standing orders in general.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Mar 2016, 11:57 AM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of the following motion put by Liberal Senator George Brandis:

That the question be now put.

This is a 'closure of debate' motion, which means it ends debate on a particular question so that the Senate can vote immediately on it. Basically, this motion is to speed things along.

What was the question?

The question that could then be asked without further debate was:

That a motion to exempt these bills from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

Read more about this motion.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Mar 2016, 11:49 AM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Liberal Senator George Brandis:

That that question be now put.

This is a 'closure of debate' motion, which means it ends debate on a particular question so that the Senate can vote immediately on it. Basically, this motion is to speed things along.

What was the question?

The question now is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.

Read more about this motion.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Mar 2016, 11:36 AM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of the following motion put by Liberal Senator George Brandis:

That the question be now put.

This is a 'closure of debate' motion, which means it ends debate on a particular question so that the Senate can vote immediately on it. Basically, this motion is to speed things along.

What was the question?

The question that could then be asked without further debate was whether:

this bill may now proceed without formalities.

Read more about this motion.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Mar 2016, 11:24 AM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Liberal Senator George Brandis.

That the question be now put.

This is a 'closure of debate' motion, which means it ends debate on a particular question so that the Senate can vote immediately on it. Basically, this motion is to speed things along.

What was the question?

The question that could then be asked without further debate was:

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

Read more about that motion.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

2nd Dec 2014, 5:32 PM – Senate Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - End debate on bill's main idea

Show detail

Labor Senator Claire Moore had wanted to end debate on the bill's main idea (in parliamentary jargon, she wanted to put the question). But because an equal number of senators had agreed and disagreed with her, the debate will continue because a majority wasn't reached.

Main idea of the bill

The main idea of the bill is to introduce broad ranging changes to the higher education sector, including the three changes mentioned below.

1. Deregulating university fees

One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is that it will remove any restrictions on the amount that universities can charge students for tuition in Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs). It is not known how much tuition fees would rise if this bill is passed and becomes law (read more in the bills digest).

2. Indexing HECS-HELP debt by ten year bond rate

The bill will also introduce new indexation arrangements for Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) debts (also known as HECS-HELP debts). Currently, these debts are indexed by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The bill proposes to index them by the generally higher ten year bond rate, with a cap at 6%.

3. Charging fees for postgraduate research degrees

Currently, postgraduate students in research degrees don't have to pay any tuition costs. The bill will allow universities to charge these students fees of up to $3,900 per unit for high-cost courses and $1,700 for low-cost courses.

Background to the bill

As part of its 2014-15 Budget, Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Government has announced a series of changes to government funding arrangements and this bill is part of those changes (read more in the bills digest).

absent Yes (strong) Not passed

30th Sep 2014, 5:21 PM – Senate Committees - Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration - End debate on whether to create committee

Show detail

The majority wanted to end debate on the question of whether to create a select committee on certain aspects of Queensland government administration. This means that the question will now be asked immediately without further discussion (see that division). In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

What will the committee do?

The motion would ask the committee to inquire into and report on:

But! Because of Australia's federal system of government, the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.

Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus, who introduced this motion, explained that he believed the motion was necessary because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his full explanation).

Background to the motion

This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus has introduced this motion. The first time failed because Liberal Senator Eric Abetz managed to amend the motion so the period of inquiry would begin from 21 March 2009 and therefore include former Labor Premier Anna Bligh's government.

Following that successful amendment, the motion lost the Labor Party's support and so was voted down without a division (see ABC News).

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

30th Sep 2014, 5:13 PM – Senate Committees - Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration - End debate on whether to include Bligh Government in inquiry

Show detail

The majority wanted to end debate on the question of whether the select committee's inquiry should include the former Bligh Government (that is, that the period of inquiry should begin on 21 March 2009 rather than 26 March 2012). This means that the question will now be asked immediately without further discussion (see that division). In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

What will the committee do?

The select committee will inquire into and report on:

But! Because of Australia's federal system of government, the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.

Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus explained that he believed the committee was necessary because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his full explanation).

Background to the motion

This is the second time that Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus has introduced this motion. The first time failed because Liberal Senator Eric Abetz managed to amend the motion so the period of inquiry would begin from 21 March 2009 and therefore include former Labor Premier Anna Bligh's government.

Following that successful amendment, the motion lost the Labor Party's support and so was voted down without a division (see ABC News).

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

25th Sep 2014, 1:41 PM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - End debate on whether to limit ASIO's access to devices

Show detail

The majority agreed to end debate on whether to limit the number of devices the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) can access. This means that the senators will immediately be asked whether they agree with this question without further debate (see that division). In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

Background to the bill

After the major counter-terrorism raids in Sydney and Brisbane, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that the balance between freedom and security had to shift (see ABC News). This bill is part of that change.

The bill also seems to be a response to American Edward Snowden leaking classified American intelligence information last year.

Read the bills digest for more information about the bill.

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

23rd Sep 2014, 5:35 PM – Senate Committees — Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration — End debate on whether to debate the motion

Show detail

An equal number of senators agreed and disagreed to end debate on whether they should be able to debate creating a select committee (in parliamentary jargon, an equal number voted 'aye' and 'no' to putting the question). This means that the debate on whether to keep debating can continue!

What will the committee do?

The select committee will inquire into and report on:

But! Because of Australia's federal system of government, the committee can only look into these things if they in some way relate to the Commonwealth.

Background to the motion

Palmer United Party Senator Glenn Lazarus explained that he proposed to establish this select committee because "serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation and various other matters" (see his full explanation).

No Yes (strong) Not passed

10th Jul 2014, 9:56 AM – Senate Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and related bills - Declaration of Urgency - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the question be now put", which was moved by Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield. The question referred to was: "That the time allotted for consideration of the remaining stages of these bills be until 11.50 am." That motion was subsequently put.(See that motion here. )

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2) and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the second time that this package of bills has been introduced, after they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage the first time round.(See that division here. )

The other related bills that were introduced along with the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2) are:

The Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 (No. 2) was previously rejected in the Senate at second reading stage.(See that division here.)

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Jun 2014 – Senate Regulations and Determinations — Australian Meat and Live—stock Industry (Export of Live—stock to Egypt) Repeal Order 2014 - Put the motion (for disallowance)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that the question now be put". This motion ends debate by requiring that the vote occur immediately.

The question was whether a motion put by Senator Lee Rhiannon be agreed to. That motion related to the live export industry and was subsequently put.(See that motion here.)

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a large majority

15th May 2014, 11:11 AM – Senate National Integrity Commission Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. The question was whether to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. )

Because this motion was unsuccessful, the second reading debate will continue and the vote on whether to read the bill for a second time will take place at a later date.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced as a private member's bill by Senator Christine Milne. It seeks to establish a National Integrity Commission as an independent statutory agency in order to:

  • investigate and prevent misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments, agencies, and federal parliamentarians and their staff;
  • investigate and prevent corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission; and
  • provide independent advice to ministers and parliamentarians on conduct, ethics and matters of proprietary.(Read more about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, here.)
absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

27th Jun 2013, 11:52 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Reinstatement of Temporary Protection Visas) Bill 2013 [No. 2] - Second Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question now be put.

The motion was put by Liberal Senator Eric Abetz. The question to be put was whether to read the bill a second time.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced as a private senator's bill by Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash. It amends the Migration Act 1958 to create two visa subclasses for people who arrive in Australia without a visa at an excised offshore place (such as Christmas Island) and apply for asylum. The visa subclasses are: temporary protection (offshore entry) visas and temporary protection (secondary movement offshore entry) visas.(Read more about these proposed visa subclasses in the bill's explanatory memorandum here or in the Senate discussion of the bill here.)

References

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

20th Jun 2013, 11:21 AM – Senate Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - End debate on bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted for ending the debate on the bill's main idea so the senators will now be asked whether they agree with it straight away without any more talk. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

The bill’s main idea was that Australian law should recognise all marriages that are legal overseas, including same-sex marriages.

Background to the bill

Same-sex marriage is not legal or recognised in Australia so homosexual couples who marry overseas are not considered married here.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced this bill two months after New Zealand became the latest country to allow same-sex marriage (more information on Wikipedia).

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Jun 2013, 10:47 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Put the question (Greens amendment - extend protection)

Show detail

This division relates to the Policies For protecting Australia's fresh water resources and For coal seam gas extraction.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was whether the Greens Party amendment should be agreed to.

The Greens amendment was introduced by Senator Larissa Waters.

The vote on the amendment is available here.

Background to the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See here for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Jun 2013, 10:12 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Put the question (Liberal Party amendment)

Show detail

This division relates to the Policies For protecting Australia's fresh water resources and For coal seam gas extraction.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was whether the Liberal Party's amendment should be agreed to.

The Liberal Party amendment was introduced by Senator Simon Birmingham to draw a distinction between "exploration or appraisal activities and actual production and development activities".(You can read Senator Birmingham's comments about the amendment here. )

The vote on the amendment is available here.

Background to the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See here for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.

References

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Jun 2013, 9:46 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Put the question (Greens Party amendment - owner consent)

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was whether the Greens Party amendment should be agreed to.

The Greens amendment was introduced by Senator Larissa Waters and requires the Minister to get the consent of land owners and occupiers before approving developments that this bill’s provisions apply to.

See also the vote on the amendment.

Background to the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to protect water resources from significant impacts caused by coal seam gas and large coal mining developments.(See here for more information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest.) This is called a ‘water trigger’. The bill creates penalties and offences to prohibit such actions.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Mar 2012, 10:21 PM – Senate Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills - Second Reading - That the question now be put

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Labor Senator Jacinta Collins that the question now be put.

The question referred to was one moved by Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann that:

...so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent the Senate debating the issues that were just raised by Senator Bob Brown in relation to the constitutional aspects of his amendment and the constitutional aspects of the mining tax.(To learn more about standing orders, see this Fact Sheet. )

This means that the majority were in favour of now voting on Senator Cormann's motion, rather than continuing to debate the issue.(The division on Senator Cormann's motion is available here.)

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

19th Mar 2012, 9:26 PM – Senate Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011 and related bills - Second Reading - That the question now be put

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Labor Senator Jacinta Collins that the question now be put.

The question referred to was a motion moved by Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann that:

...so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.(To learn more about standing orders, see this Fact Sheet. )

This means that the majority were in favour of now voting on Senator Cormann's motion, rather than continuing to debate the issue.(The division on Senator Cormann's motion is available here.)

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

8th Nov 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - In Committee - Put the question

Show detail

This division relates to the Policy For a carbon price.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be now put, which was moved by Labor Senator Chris Evans, Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Evans introduced the motion to put an end to the debate, which he said had already taken an "enormous amount of time".(Read the rest of Senator Evans explanation for the amendment here.)

The bills being debated were a package of eighteen bills to implement a carbon pricing mechanism, which is a key policy of the Australian Labor Party while in Government.

The eighteen bills were:

Background to the bills

The carbon pricing mechanism would commence on 1 July 2012. It is an emissions trading scheme that will put a price on carbon emissions. It will apply to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon will be fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market.

For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website.

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

12th Oct 2011 – Senate Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - First Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion moved by Senator Joe Ludwig.

The motion was to put the question, meaning that this division was a vote on whether the Senate should now vote on a particular question. In this case, the question was whether these bills may proceed without formalities.(The division on that question is available here. )

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Bill 2011 and seventeen related bills are designed to introduce the carbon pricing mechanism,(For more detail about the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website.) which will commence on 1 July 2012. It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon will be fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market.

The eighteen bills were:

References

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

11th Oct 2011 – Senate Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 - Third Reading - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put. The question was that the bill be read a third time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

Compulsory student union fees were abolished under then Prime Minister John Howard’s Coalition Government with the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Upfront Student Union Fees) Bill 2005. This meant that universities could no longer require students to pay a compulsory fee for facilities, amenities or services that were not of an academic nature.

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010 is the third bill introduced by the Labor Government to re-introduce a compulsory student services and amenities fee since 2009. The first bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and other Measures) Bill 2009, was defeated in the Senate.(See that division here.) The second, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009, lapsed at the end of the 42nd Parliament.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

26th Nov 2010, 12:00 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Put the question

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which in this case was whether the Senate agreed with the motion put by Senator George Brandis. Because this motion was successful, debate on the question ended and Senator Brandis' motion was immediately put to the Senate.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Although this bill is substantially the same as the earlier bill of the same name, it does have some additional provisions.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

15th Mar 2010, 3:46 PM – Senate Food Importation (Bovine Meat Standards) Bill 2010 — Second Reading — Put the question to read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question of whether to read the bill for a second time now be put.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) The motion was moved by Senator Stephen Parry. The motion means that the Senate will now vote on having a second reading without further debate.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill would require that bovine meat and meat products must meet certain assessment processes before being imported into Australia and that the minister determines a country of origin labelling standard for those products.(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill here. )

Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck explained that the bill has been introduced "following the Rudd Government’s decision to allow the importation of beef and beef products from countries that had reported any cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)".(Read Senator Colbeck's whole explanation of the bill here. Read more about the Rudd Government's decision to allow imports on ABC's AM Program here. ) This decision means that such importations could take place from 1 March 2010. Since 2001, measures have been in place "to protect the public and the beef industry from potentially contaminated beef products".(As above.)

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "voted a mixture of for and 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 11 550 550
MP voted against policy 11 0 550
MP absent 9 225 450
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: 775 1550

*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 = 775 / 1550 = 50%.

And then