How Jane Hume voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase funding for the vocational education sector, which includes TAFEs, apprenticeships and traineeships

Division Jane Hume Supporters vote Division outcome

24th Jun 2021, 12:29 PM – Senate Motions - Employment, Western Australia - Resources Industry skills shortage

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by ACT Senator Katy Gallagher (Labor), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has cut 14,500 apprentices and trainees in Western Australia since it was elected in 2013,

(ii) even before the pandemic the Government cut $3 billion from TAFE, training and apprenticeship funding and billions from university funding,

(iii) as a result of these cuts, the Western Australian resources industry faces a skill shortage of over 30,000 workers by mid-2023, and

(iv) rather than training locals, the Morrison Government has added a range of mining and engineering occupations to the Priority Migration Skilled Occupation List; and

(b) calls on the Morrison Government to urgently fix the resources industry skill shortage in Western Australia, by investing in training for Western Australians.

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

17th Oct 2019, 11:49 AM – Senate Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - $1 billion to TAFE

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie, which means they failed.

Senator Lambie explained that:

These amendments retain $1 billion in the Education Investment Fund and transfer the remaining amount to the Emergency Response Fund. I don't expect these to pass, and let's consider why. This bill whips up a $4 billion opportunity to fund TAFE and turns it into a $4 billion fund to fund disaster responses. The government say: 'Don't worry about that. TAFEs have had enough money as it is. We're giving them plenty of money. They don't need $4 billion. You know what they say!'

I say you're living in a fantasy land. You think TAFEs have too much money? Where are you living!

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a large majority

17th Oct 2019, 11:31 AM – Senate Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 - in Committee - The Education Investment Fund

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that schedule 2 of the Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 stand as printed. In other words, they wanted to keep that schedule unchanged.

What is Schedule 2?

Schedule 2 abolishes the Education Investment Fund ("EIF"). According to the bills digest:

The EIF was established on 1 January 2009 by section 131 of the Nation-building Funds Act 2008 (NBF Act), to provide dedicated ongoing capital funding for tertiary education and research infrastructure, including for universities, vocational education and training providers and other non-university organisations.

The EIF was intended to provide a large-scale funding source for transformational projects which would allow Australian research and tertiary education institutions to compete effectively with international counterparts.

Unlike many other tertiary education infrastructure funding programs, the EIF was not limited to supporting research infrastructure, but instead funded a wide range of investments, including learning and teaching spaces.

Yes No (strong) 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 2 0 100
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: 0 110

*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 / 110 = 0.0%.

And then