How Steve Fielding voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should protect threatened forest and bushland habitats from logging.

Division Steve Fielding Supporters vote

11th May 2010, 4:22 PM – Senate Motions - Environment: Millewa Forest - Stop logging

No Yes

19th Mar 2009, 9:49 AM – Senate Motions - Protect the Swift Parrot - Deliberate Actions and Recovery Plan

No Yes

4th Dec 2008, 10:39 AM – Senate Motions - Koala Habitat - Protect Bermagui habitat

No Yes

29th Nov 2006, 3:45 PM – Senate Motions - Logging in Tasmania’s Weld River Valley - Halt logging

No Yes

28th Mar 2006, 3:52 PM – Senate Motions - Wedge-Tailed Eagle - Protect habitat

absent Yes

How "consistently 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 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 1 42

*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 = 1 / 42 = 2.4%.

And then