How Robert Simms voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should ensure that Australian sovereignty always comes first when signing trade agreements so that the government can protect Australian interests (including its workforce and industries) without risking legal action from foreign investors under provisions such as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses

Division Robert Simms Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Apr 2016, 7:29 PM – Senate Motions - Steel Industry - Support local industry

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Robert Simms (SA), which means it was rejected.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that:

(i) the Australian steelworks manufacturing industry has been an important part of the Australian economy for almost 100 years, and

(ii) this is a difficult time for South Australian employees at Arrium OneSteel and the Whyalla community, with Arrium recently going into administration; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) provide urgent mental health support to the Whyalla community as part of any plan to assist in securing the future of the steel industry in South Australia,

(ii) invest in the development of greenhouse gas reducing steel-making technologies,

(iii) adopt a mandatory use of Australian Standards to assess the quality compliance of all steel-related building products used in Australia,

(iv) develop a legislated national procurement policy that ensures all government infrastructure and construction projects use at least 90 per cent locally-produced steel,

(v) as a condition of such a procurement policy, require that Australian steel producers adopt renewable sources of energy for the steel production process,

(vi) recognise That the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other free trade deals prevent federal and state governments from adopting such procurement policies should they be signed, and

(vii) reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership to protect South Australian jobs.

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 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 10 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 = 10 / 10 = 100%.

And then