How Andrew Bragg voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation and regulations that protect and conserve Australia's marine ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef

Division Andrew Bragg Supporters vote Division outcome

27th Feb 2020, 12:31 PM – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Climate change

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Great Barrier Reef supports approximately 64,000 jobs and generates $6 billion for the Australian economy annually,

(ii) approximately half of the shallow water coral of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost since 2016 due to successive coral bleaching incidents,

(iii) the Centre for Tourism and Regional Opportunities has reported a dramatic decline in domestic tourism since successive coral bleaching events,

(iv) in February 2020, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority survey teams found significant bleaching at three reefs in the Shelburne Bay and Wuthathi region of the Great Barrier Reef,

(v) current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Watch forecasts show a heightened risk of a mass bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef in the coming weeks, and

(vi) climate change remains the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) implement a climate policy that accelerates actions to limit global warming to 1.5°C to protect the Great Barrier Reef and the jobs that it supports,

(ii) take all action necessary to properly protect the Great Barrier Reef and avoid the UNESCO World Heritage Committee needing to place the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage In Danger List, and

(iii) develop a clear plan to move Australia towards 100% clean energy, including a plan for a just transition for Australia's regional workforces so that regional economies can thrive and workers are protected.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

26th Feb 2020, 4:06 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Great Australian Bight as world heritage

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Norwegian oil company Equinor, has announced it is discontinuing its exploration drilling plans in the Great Australian Bight,

(ii) this is an opportunity to celebrate the pristine and precious Great Australian Bight and to protect it for future generations and the rest of the world to come and experience,

(iii) the Bight is ecologically and environmentally significant and home to some of the most unique wildlife in the world with 85% of marine life found in the Bight found nowhere else,

(iv) Australia Institute Research has shown that more than 4 in 5 South Australians (84%) and 7 in 10 Australians want to see the Bight given World Heritage protection, and

(v) in July 2018, the South Australian Parliament called on the state government to work with the federal government to seek listing under the World Heritage Convention of the waters, seabed and coastline of the Great Australian Bight as a matter of urgency; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to submit the Great Australian Bight for consideration as a World Heritage Site.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

10th Feb 2020, 7:43 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Cancel permit

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Senator Mehreen Faruqi (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Asset Energy has announced that it will not proceed with plans for seismic testing in the Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 zone, which was originally planned for thousands of square kilometres of ocean from Newcastle through the Central Coast to Manly in New South Wales,

(ii) while this is welcome news for ocean life, exploration through drilling could occur soon causing irreversible damage to the marine environment, and

(iii) there is a climate emergency and further coal, gas or oil reserves should not be developed if we have any chance of preventing more than 1 degrees of warming; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to cancel Petroleum Exploration Permit 11.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

6th Feb 2020, 12:32 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Great Australian Bight

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate notes—

(a) that Norwegian oil giant, Equinor, has received its second of four rounds of approvals from the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, the government regulator responsible for oversight into exploratory petroleum drilling in the Great Australian Bight;

(b) the deep community opposition to 'big oil' drilling in one of our most pristine ocean environments and sites of natural heritage in the world; and

(c) that tens of thousands of Australians continue to fight for the Bight, in forums both formal and informal, as communities across the country unite to reject Equinor's disastrous plan.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

3rd Dec 2019, 4:04 PM – Senate Documents - Stromlo-1 Exploration Drilling Program - Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which means it failed.

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, by 9 am on 5 December 2019:

(a) all correspondence between the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) and Equinor on its request for Equinor to modify and resubmit its environmental plan in relation to the Stromlo-1 Exploration Drilling Program;

(b) all correspondence between NOPSEMA and Equinor in relation to the notice issued by NOPSEMA on 8 November 2019 requesting further information about matters relating to consultation, source control, oil-spill risk and matters under Part 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

(c) all correspondence between NOPSEMA and Equinor, up to 2 December 2019, in relation to the Stromlo-1 Exploration Drilling Program since the issuing of the notice on 8 November 2019.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

2nd Dec 2019, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions - Great Australian Bight - Protect from oil exploration

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Norwegian oil giant, Equinor, plans to drill for oil in the pristine ocean environment of the Great Australian Bight,

(ii) the majority of Australians oppose the plan, recognising that there is no safe way to drill for oil in the remote, rough seas of the Bight and it is not worth the environmental or economic risks, and three out of four South Australians stated in an Advertiser survey, released on 22 November 2019, they would not support it even if it would drive down their fuel prices,

(iii) on 23 November 2019, a National Day of Action was held to Fight for the Bight, which saw more than 10,000 people attend more than 50 events across the country from Exmouth, Western Australia, to Townsville, Queensland, and on some of Australia's most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Manly, Bells Beach, Byron Bay, Margaret River and Currumbin, and

(iv) according to the most recent polling from The Australia Institute, Australians want to see the Great Australian Bight protected, and more than four in five South Australians (84%) support World Heritage protection for the Bight; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) back the calls of the majority of Australians and tell Equinor that they are not welcome here, and

(ii) protect the Great Australian Bight by listing it as a World Heritage site.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

13th Nov 2019, 4:53 PM – Senate Motions - Great Australian Bight - Foreign company

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate notes that:

(a) Norwegian company Equinor has an application before the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight;

(b) NOPSEMA has rejected Equinor's environment plan stating that Equinor must provide it with further information about matters relating to consultation, source control, oil spill risk, and matters protected under Part 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

(c) modelling commissioned by The Australia Institute shows Equinor will pay the Norwegian Government more than it will pay in Australian Government taxes, and up to 27 times more than it will pay to the South Australian Government;

(d) if Equinor's application is ultimately approved by NOPSEMA, a foreign-owned company will therefore take the vast majority of financial gains while exploiting and putting at risk our precious marine and coastal environment, and tens of thousands of tourism and fishing industry jobs; and

(e) the ecological and environmental significance of the Great Australian Bight is, in fact, priceless.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

31st Jul 2019, 3:55 PM – Senate Committees - Environment and Communications References Committee - Reference

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2019:

The impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment, with particular reference to:

(a) recent scientific findings;

(b) the regulation of seismic testing in both Commonwealth and state waters;

(c) the approach taken to seismic testing internationally; and

(d) any other related matters.

No Yes 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 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 8 0 80
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 80

*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 / 80 = 0.0%.

And then