Photo of Nickolas Varvaris

Nickolas Varvaris voted very strongly against letting environmental groups challenge the legality of certain government decisions

How Nickolas Varvaris voted compared to someone who believes that environmental and conservation groups should be able to challenge the legality of federal government decisions made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (in other words, they should have standing to seek judicial review under that Act)

Division Nickolas Varvaris Supporters vote Division outcome

10th Sep 2015, 1:29 PM – Representatives Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of passing the bill in the House of Representatives. In parliamentary jargon, they agreed to give the bill a third reading. This means that the bill will now go to the Senate for them to decide whether they also want to pass it so it can become law.

What is the main idea of the bill?

The purpose of this bill is to make it so that only "aggrieved persons" can seek judicial review of decisions made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

According to the bills digest, "[t]he Bill is a response to a successful challenge by the Mackay Conservation Group against the Minister for the Environment’s decision to grant approval under the EPBC Act for the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland (proposed by Adani Mining Pty Ltd)".

What is judicial review?

When a person seeks judicial review, they are asking the courts to decide whether the government has made a particular decision properly according to the law. The courts do not decide whether the decision was good or not; they only decide whether it was lawful.

In order to seek judicial review, you must have standing - meaning, the right to seek judicial review.

Currently, under the EPBC Act, Australian people and organisations involved with environmental protection, conservation or research can have standing to seek judicial review. That was how the Mackay Conservation Group were able to bring their action against the Carmichael coal mine.

Who is an "aggrieved person"?

An "aggrieved person" is a person whose interests would be ‘adversely affected’ by the decision made under the EPBC Act. Generally, those interests need to be directly affected and the person needs to be able to show a 'special interest' beyond just being a member of the public.

What does this mean?

The bills digest says that the bill "raises questions about accountable and responsible government" and it is also "unclear whether the Bill will achieve its intended purpose", which is to prevent disruptions and delays to projects approved under the EPBC Act.

 Yes No (strong) Passed by a small majority

10th Sep 2015, 1:20 PM – Representatives Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standing) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they agreed to give the bill a second reading.

What is the main idea of the bill?

The purpose of this bill is to make it so that only "aggrieved persons" can seek judicial review of decisions made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

According to the bills digest, "[t]he Bill is a response to a successful challenge by the Mackay Conservation Group against the Minister for the Environment’s decision to grant approval under the EPBC Act for the Carmichael coal mine in Queensland (proposed by Adani Mining Pty Ltd)".

What is judicial review?

When a person seeks judicial review, they are asking the courts to decide whether the government has made a particular decision properly according to the law. The courts do not decide whether the decision was good or not; they only decide whether it was lawful.

In order to seek judicial review, you must have standing - meaning, the right to seek judicial review.

Currently, under the EPBC Act, Australian people and organisations involved with environmental protection, conservation or research can have standing to seek judicial review. That was how the Mackay Conservation Group were able to bring their action against the Carmichael coal mine.

Who is an "aggrieved person"?

An "aggrieved person" is a person whose interests would be ‘adversely affected’ by the decision made under the EPBC Act. Generally, those interests need to be directly affected and the person needs to be able to show a 'special interest' beyond just being a member of the public.

What does this mean?

The bills digest says that the bill "raises questions about accountable and responsible government" and it is also "unclear whether the Bill will achieve its intended purpose", which is to prevent disruptions and delays to projects approved under the EPBC Act.

 Yes No (strong) 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 2 0 100
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 100

*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 / 100 = 0.0%.

And then