How Robert Simms voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should maintain or increase its investment in and support for the Australian coal industry

Division Robert Simms Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Mar 2016, 12:39 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Support a rapid transition to clean energy

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. It called for the government to stop supporting new coal mining developments and start supporting a rapid transition to clean energy.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, stated on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Q&A program that Australia is 'losing the battle' against global warming,

(ii) Professor Terry Hughes has told 'The Conversation' that Australia can either develop new coal mines or protect the Great Barrier Reef, but 'we can't possibly do both',

(iii) coral bleaching caused by global warming has already caused the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to raise its bleaching alert to Level 2, and the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has upgraded its Coral Reef Watch warning for the far northern Great Barrier Reef to Alert Level 2, the highest threat level, and

(iv) the mining and burning of coal is driving dangerous global warming which threatens the Great Barrier Reef; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to abandon its support for the Adani mega coal mine and Abbot Point coal port expansion, and support a rapid transition to 100 per cent clean energy as soon as possible, and at least 90 per cent clean energy by 2030.

Yes No Not passed by a modest majority

10th Nov 2015, 3:55 PM – Senate Business - Coalmining - Oppose Shenhua Watermark coal mine

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon.

The motion opposed the government approvals of the Shenhua Watermark coal mine in the Liverpool Plains.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Shenhua Australia Holdings is seeking to develop a 35 square kilometre coal mine on the Liverpool Plains in north west New South Wales,

(ii) the Liverpool Plains is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the nation, with productivity 40 per cent above the national average,

(iii) the proposed mine threatens the most significant underground water resources in the Murray -Darling Basin, and farmers are dependent on access to these water resources for their survival,

(iv) if the mine proceeds it would:

(A) comprise three open-cut pits, plus associated infrastructure, to mine up to 10 million tonnes of coal per year for 30 years and rail infrastructure to take the coal to the Port of Newcastle for export, and

(B) destroy significant areas of local Indigenous heritage, including grinding grooves that were used by Gomeroi warriors to sharpen spears,

(v) the proposal to relocate Indigenous artefacts does not acknowledge connections to land and country,

(vi) as the price of coal is in structural decline it is irresponsible to risk valuable farming land for a coal mine when renewable energy is commercially viable, and

(vii) more than 750 people attended the Harvest Festival to support the call for no mining on the Liverpool Plains; and

(b) calls on:

(i) the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, to reverse the Federal Government's approval of the Shenhua Watermark coal mine; and

(ii) the New South Wales Government not to grant a mining licence for the Shenhua Watermark coal mine.

Yes No 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