How Robert Simms voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase investment in renewable energy technologies

Division Robert Simms Supporters vote Division outcome

3rd May 2016, 4:02 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Australian Renewable Energy Agency

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that called for the Senate to resolve that funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) won't be reduced. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) how well positioned Australia is to take advantage of the huge jobs and commercial opportunities from investing in research and development in clean energy technologies,

(ii) That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) is the institution that will enable us to be global leaders in clean technology innovation, and

(iii) That the 2014 Budget proposed $1.3 billion in cuts to ARENA for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 which have so far been blocked but which have caused considerable uncertainty for ARENA; and

(b) resolves That the $1.5 billion of currently legislated funding for ARENA for the financial years 2016-17 to 2021-22 will not be reduced.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

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 Yes 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 20 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 = 20 / 20 = 100%.

And then