How David Leyonhjelm voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases the protection of Australia's fresh water resources, including its river and groundwater systems

Division David Leyonhjelm Supporters vote Division outcome

14th Feb 2019, 12:27 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission - Respond to recommendations

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of paragraph (b)(i) of a motion introduced by South Australian Senator Tim Storer (Independent), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't have any legal force on their own but are politically influential as they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

...

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) immediately respond to each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and

...

No Yes Passed by a small majority

14th Feb 2019 – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission - Reform needed

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of paragraph (a)(i) to (iv) of a motion introduced by South Australian Senator Tim Storer (Independent), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't have any legal force on their own but are politically influential as they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival, the latest evidence of this being the fish-kills at Menindee Lakes,

(ii) the management of the Murray-Darling Basin requires urgent reform,

(iii) the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission delivered its findings on 29 January 2019, including recommendations to:

(A) improve transparency by "requiring real-time data sharing and publication on water extractions",

(B) abolish the water buybacks cap of 1,500 gigalitres, and

(C) undertake further research into return flows so that we know the effects of irrigation efficiency projects, and

(iv) the Productivity Commission delivered its findings to the Federal Government on 19 December 2018, pointing out that:

(A) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's twin roles as overseer of the Plan and its regulator are "conflicted and the conflicts will intensity in the next five years", and

(B) structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into a Basin Plan Regulator and Murray-Darling Basin Agency is required to ensure effective implementation of the Plan; and

...

No Yes Passed by a small majority

27th Nov 2018, 4:51 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Water environmental assessment

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 58% of Queensland is drought declared,

(ii) the Adani Carmichael mine has applied to extract 12.5 billion litres of water from the Suttor River every year, nearly as much as all other local users combined,

(iii) the China Stone coal mine, which is now one step closer to approval, is expected to extract another 12.5 billion litres of water, from the very same river system,

(iv) the Queensland Government has granted the Adani Carmichael mine an unlimited groundwater extraction licence for 60 years,

(v) it is expected that the China Stone mine will draw a similar volume of groundwater as the Adani Carmichael mine,

(vi) polling conducted by ReachTel shows voters are concerned about water extraction by Adani, and 70% agreed the groundwater extraction licence should be revoked to safeguard water for farmers, and

(vii) the Queensland Coordinator General has asked for MacMines' China Stone mine to provide extra revised groundwater impact assessment, as well as an associated water licence before the mine could be approved; and

(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment to require MacMines Austasia to conduct a cumulative water environmental assessment for coal mines in the Galilee Basin before any decision is made whether to approve the China Stone coal mine project.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2018, 9:17 PM – Senate Water Amendment Bill 2018 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill a third time. Since it had already passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

What does this bill do?

The bill was introduced to:

enable the Commonwealth Water Minister to direct the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to prepare an amendment to the Basin Plan 2012 (the Basin Plan) that is the same in effect as a Basin Plan amendment that has previously been disallowed, or taken to have been disallowed, by either House of Parliament.

Read more in the bills digest.

Yes No Passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2018, 8:36 PM – Senate Water Amendment Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time, which means they can now discuss it in greater detail.

What does this bill do?

The bill was introduced to:

enable the Commonwealth Water Minister to direct the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to prepare an amendment to the Basin Plan 2012 (the Basin Plan) that is the same in effect as a Basin Plan amendment that has previously been disallowed, or taken to have been disallowed, by either House of Parliament.

Read more in the bills digest.

Yes No Passed by a modest majority

9th May 2018, 6:50 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Basin Plan Amendment (Sdl Adjustments) Instrument 2017 - Disallowance

Show detail
No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

14th Feb 2018, 7:14 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1) - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disallow the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1), which means that instrument will no longer have legal force.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA) explained that:

... we have a regulation before us in this place [that is, the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1)] that suggests the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be amended to take more water out of the river, to take more water off the environment and to hand it to big corporate irrigators upstream. It is rewarding bad behaviour. That is why today's vote is very, very important. Amongst this cesspool of water theft, corruption and mismanagement, why on earth would this parliament sign off on giving more water to the people who have behaved badly and less water to the river that desperately needs it?

No Yes Passed by a small majority

15th Nov 2017, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas Mining: Liverpool Plains - Moratorium

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion calling for:

the Government to protect agricultural groundwater systems by placing a moratorium on Commonwealth approval of proposed coal and coal seam gas mining projects on the Liverpool Plains, Namoi Valley and Gunnedah Basin.

This means the motion failed.

Full motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) sustainable food and fibre production on the Liverpool Plains requires an integrated and strategic approach to water reform,

(ii) the Liverpool Plains contains some of the most productive and fertile soil in Australia and farmers need certainty about water resources to assist their farming practices, and

(iii) the high degree of connectivity between groundwater systems throughout the Namoi Valley indicates that mining impacts on Liverpool Plains groundwater can extend well beyond one local site into surrounding agricultural systems; and

(b) calls on the Government to protect agricultural groundwater systems by placing a moratorium on Commonwealth approval of proposed coal and coal seam gas mining projects on the Liverpool Plains, Namoi Valley and Gunnedah Basin.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

24th Nov 2014, 5:06 PM – Senate Motions - Foreign Investment - Limit foreign investment

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which would have put further limits on foreign investment.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate

(a) notes:

(i) the Free Trade memorandum of understanding [63.5KB] signed between Australia and China, and

(ii) that climate change, with its consequent global food insecurity, is driving governments to acquire land and water outside their own borders as sources of food supply; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) create a register of foreign ownership of agricultural land and water assets to continuously track overseas purchases,

(ii) lower the threshold from $248 million to $5 million for consideration of the national interest by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) for purchases of agricultural land and water by a foreign private entity,

(iii) legislate a stronger national interest test to be applied by the FIRB for purchases of agricultural land and water resources, and

(iv) prohibit the purchase of agricultural land and water by wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign governments.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

22nd Sep 2014, 1:38 PM – Senate Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Independent study before grant of mining licences

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. The motion would have removed schedule 5 from the commencement provisions of the bill so that it does not commence with the rest of the schedules and therefore remains ineffective.

Schedule 5 contains environmental provisions, including a provision that repeals section 255AA of the Water Act 2007, which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the Murray-Darling system". (Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the bills digest. )

Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do" (see Senator Waters' full explanation here).

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector" (see the explanatory memorandum) and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the bills digest.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

22nd Sep 2014, 1:32 PM – Senate Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Independent study before grant of mining licences

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that schedule 5 "stand as printed" (i.e. that schedule 5 remain unchanged). Schedule 5 contained environmental provisions, including the repeal of section 255AA of the Water Act 2007, which "requires an independent study to be undertaken before the grant of mining licences on floodplains in the Murray-Darling system". (Read more about Schedule 5 and this particular provision in the bills digest.)

This motion was put in response to an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, which called for schedule 5 to be opposed. Senator Waters explained that with this schedule, the government is proposing "to allow companies to proceed with mining of gold, silver, copper—a whole host of mines that can have subsidence impacts—without doing the independent study on groundwater that existing section 255AA of the Water Act requires them to do" (see Senator Waters' full explanation here).

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to "reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector" (see the explanatory memorandum) and to repeal redundant provisions that are either duplications or have ceased to have effect. The provisions of the bill that make material changes have been identified and discussed in the bills digest.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

17th Jul 2014, 12:07 PM – Senate Motions - National Water Commission - Reverse position on closure

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon (Greens), which means it passed. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) water is one of our most important resources and is critical to Australia's economic growth,

(ii) the National Water Commission (the Commission) plays a crucial role in monitoring, auditing and assessing water policy,

(iii) the independence of the Commission is vital to its effectiveness, and

(iv) the 2011 Council of Australian Governments review of the Commission stated that it should continue 'for the lifetime of the NWI' and 'without sunset provision until the NWI is substantially replaced'; and

(b) calls on the Government to reverse its position on the closure of the Commission.

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 10 0 100
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 2 2 4
Total: 2 104

*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 = 2 / 104 = 1.9%.

And then