voted compared to someone who believes that
the federal government should privatise government owned assets
The majority voted against this motion, which means it failed.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) electricity prices have gone up 12.4 per cent from December 2016 to December 2017 and are too high,
(ii) the companies that own our electricity networks, including those registered in the Cayman Islands, have made $27.5 billion profit over the last 4 years, which is pushing up prices, and
(iii) the deregulation of electricity prices has seen them skyrocket, so that in Victoria up to 30 per cent of a household's bill is for retailers profits alone, according to the Grattan Institute;
(b) agrees with Victorian Premier Mr Daniel Andrews that electricity should never have been privatised; and
(c) calls on the Government to start bringing the electricity network back into public hands and to take all steps to reregulate electricity prices.
Not passed by a modest majority
The majority voted in favour of a motion that the bill be read a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that the Senate can now consider the bill in more detail.
Background to the bill
In the 2013 election campaign, the Coalition said that it would be an infrastructure-focused government and committed to finding ways to encourage the private sector to become more involved in infrastructure financing. This bill reflects that commitment by amending the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 ('the Act') to allow partnerships and non-corporate Commonwealth entities, such as public private partnerships, to be funded. The bill also renames the Act to the National Land Transport Act 2014 and continues the Roads to Recovery Programme after 30 June 2014, when it is currently scheduled to end.(Read more about the bill in the bills digest.)
Passed by a large majority
How "never voted" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple
phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case
was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other
than that they have "never voted" on this policy.