How Malcolm Roberts voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should allocate 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to foreign aid in line with the United Nations' target

Division Malcolm Roberts Supporters vote Division outcome

9th May 2017, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Fund diplomatic network and aid

Show detail

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

The motion asked for the Government "not to purchase weaponised drones, and instead direct funding to strengthening Australia’s diplomatic network and increasing Australia’s aid budget from its current record low".

Full motion text

That the Senate—

(a) is deeply concerned that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is reportedly planning to purchase weaponised drones;

(b) notes that:

(i) the Obama Administration is estimated to have killed at least 7 000 people with these lethal unpiloted aircraft during its term of government,

(ii) the Bureau of Investigative Journalists estimates that up to 1 168 civilians have been killed in United States (US) drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia alone,

(iii) due to the lack of transparency surrounding the US’s lethal drone program, and the practice of categorising unidentified people killed in strikes as enemies even if they were not the intended target, it is impossible to tally the exact number of civilian deaths, and

(iv) weaponised drone strikes exacerbate the very threat that the ADF is seeking to confront; and

(c) calls on the Australian Government not to purchase weaponised drones, and instead direct funding to strengthening Australia’s diplomatic network and increasing Australia’s aid budget from its current record low.

No Yes Not passed by a large 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 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 10

*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 / 10 = 0.0%.

And then