How Zed Seselja voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage sites

Division Zed Seselja Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Feb 2018, 4:22 PM – Senate Motions - Tasmania: Environment - Tarkine

Show detail

The majority voted against this motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Tasmania's unique environment is under threat from inappropriate development, and the failure to protect natural and cultural values,

(ii) rapid and unfettered expansion of fish farms is privatising public waters and damaging Tasmania's marine environment and coastal lifestyle,

(iii) private sector development in Tasmania's iconic national parks and world heritage areas is continuing,

(iv) the Swift Parrot is facing extinction due to ongoing deforestation of its habitat by logging, and

(v) Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage is being damaged by four wheel drive tracks in the Tarkine area; and

(b) condemns the Federal and Tasmanian Liberal Governments for failing to stand up for Tasmania's unique natural environment, their lack of support for a Tarkine national park, and complete inaction on climate change.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

12th Sep 2017, 4:08 PM – Senate Motions - Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area - Protect cultural heritage values

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Nick McKim, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Arthur Pieman Conservation area in the takayna/Tarkine region of Tasmania has globally-significant Aboriginal cultural heritage values,

(ii) 15 recreational vehicle tracks in the area have been closed since 2012 to protect the cultural heritage values of the site,

(iii) this decision was upheld by the Federal Court after the Tasmanian government tried to reopen three of the tracks in 2014,

(iv) despite the ban, there has been ongoing damage to these sensitive areas by illegal and reckless drivers of off-road vehicles,

(v) the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and other Aboriginal groups oppose the tracks being reopened,

(vi) the Tasmanian government has applied to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment for approval to reopen tracks 501, 503 and 601 under the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 [Cth], and

(vii) the Tasmanian government has failed to consult with the Aboriginal community prior to making the application;

(b) agrees that:

(i) any reopening of the tracks would inevitably lead to more damage to environmental and cultural heritage values, and

(ii) it is grossly culturally insensitive for the Commonwealth to even consider the Tasmanian government's application, while flagging increased penalties for interfering with European cultural history; and

(c) calls on the Commonwealth Government to reject the Tasmanian government's application to reopen the tracks.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

3rd May 2016, 3:57 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Radioactive Waste

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam that was against the nomination of Barndioota site in the Flinders Ranges for the National Radioactive Waste project.

Read more about the nomination in ABC News.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 27 November 2015 the Adnyamathanha traditional owners released a statement outlining their opposition to the nomination of Barndioota station to host a National Radioactive Waste facility with the statement detailing environmental conditions in the area, including flooding and yarta ngurra-ngurrandha (earthquakes and tremors), the importance of ground water and many mound springs close to the proposed site,

(ii) on 29 April 2016 press releases were issued from three different organisations that represent the Adnyamathanha traditional owners detailing their opposition to the nomination of Barndioota station,

(iii) the area is of cultural significance to Adnyamathanha,

(iv) Yappala was declared an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) by the Federal Government in 2014,

(v) there is extensive archaeological evidence of occupation in the surrounding area, and

(vi) there has been a lack of consultation with Adnyamathanha; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) acknowledge the opposition from the Adnyamathanha traditional owners, and

(ii) respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent, and remove the Barndioota site as a nominated site.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest 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 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 2 0 20
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 70

*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 / 70 = 0.0%.

And then