How Michaelia Cash voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should invest in climate science to ensure that Australia is best equipped to deal with the challenges of climate change

Division Michaelia Cash Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Sep 2017, 11:48 AM – Senate Motions - Climate Science - Commends and notes research

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that accurate climate and meteorological forecasting prior to, and during, the recent Atlantic hurricanes allowed for evacuations and emergency management that saved lives,

(ii) a recent article in The Economist which stated that while the number of extreme climate and weather-related emergencies have increased due to climate change, the fall in the number of fatalities is partly attributable to improved climate and weather forecasting,

(iii) that the Trump Administration has proposed cuts to agencies responsible for climate and meteorological forecasting, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and

(iv) that Australia has a world-class climate science and meteorological community;

(b) nevertheless, notes that the Australian Academy of Science's 2017 Climate Science Capability Review found that climate science and meteorological efforts are under-resourced, poorly coordinated and subject to short-term funding cycles;

(c) further notes that various climate agencies in Australia, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, have faced ongoing funding pressure;

(d) commends the work of Australia's climate agencies and researchers; and

(e) notes the recommendations of Australian Academy of Science's 2017 Climate Science Capability Review, particularly funding an additional 77 climate science researchers, and ensuring continued capability in the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

No Yes Passed by a small 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 0 0 0
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 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 = 0 / 10 = 0.0%.

And then