How Lee Rhiannon voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase investment in renewable energy technologies

Division Lee Rhiannon Supporters vote Division outcome

8th Feb 2018, 12:11 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Against Adani

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes, with concern, that the Adani Group (Adani) is on the record blatantly misrepresenting the number of jobs its polluting Carmichael coal mine would create;

(b) condemns Adani's deception in inflating its jobs figures sevenfold, until it was forced under oath to reveal that the true figure is in fact 1,464 direct and indirect jobs over the life of the project, rather than the 10 000 claimed;

(c) further notes that the carbon pollution from Adani's mine would significantly contribute to dangerous global warming, further endangering the Great Barrier Reef and the 70 000 jobs that rely on it; and

(d) asserts that, rather than relying on a polluting, deceitful company to provide jobs for Queenslanders, federal and state Governments should invest in renewable energy, service industries and manufacturing as the best drivers of Queensland jobs.

Yes Yes Not passed by a large majority

8th Feb 2018, 12:05 PM – Senate Motions - Defence Industry - Do not support

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the Australian Government's plans to make Australia one of the top ten weapons manufacturers globally, raising us from the 20th to the 10th spot, and

(ii) the dangerous and destructive effects of the global arms trade in fuelling conflicts;

(b) re-affirms the comments of World Vision CEO, Mr Tim Costello, that Australia will be "exporting death and profiting from bloodshed";

(c) condemns the fact that the Government plans to loan $3 billion to arms manufacturers, which is equal to Australia's entire foreign aid budget, which has suffered $11 billion in cuts since 2014, and follows attempts by the Government to cut $2 billion from higher education; and

(d) calls on the Government to cease immediately this plan to turn Australia into a mercenary nation of arms dealers, and instead use the funds to revitalise our manufacturing industry around renewable energy, electric cars, advanced medical technology and education services.

Yes Yes Not passed by a large majority

12th Sep 2017, 4:12 PM – Senate Motions - Renewable Energy - Against target and subsidies

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Senator David Leyonhjelm, which means the motion failed.

Motion text

That the Senate agrees that—

(a) the renewable energy target should not continue beyond 2023;

(b) no scheme to subsidise renewable energy generation or mandate a particular market share for renewable energy generation should replace it; and

(c) renewable energy projects not already approved by the Clean Energy Regulator be ineligible to receive subsidies via renewable energy certificates.

No No Not passed by a large majority

5th Sep 2017, 5:02 PM – Senate Motions - Energy - Coal not clean

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion: That the Senate does not consider coal-fired power to be clean.

This motion was introduced by WA Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens) also on behalf of Victorian Senator Richard Di Natale (Greens).

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

15th Sep 2016, 11:35 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - 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 for a third time.

Since the bill's already passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

What does this bill do?

This bill does a lot of work! It crosses eight different portfolios, from Education to the Treasury. Read more about it in the bills digest.

For example, the bill:

No No Passed by a modest majority

15th Sep 2016, 10:27 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - in Committee - ARENA

Show detail
No No Passed by a modest majority

15th Sep 2016, 9:25 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree to the main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time. In other words, they agreed with the main idea of the bill and will now discuss it in more detail.

What does this bill do?

This bill does a lot of work! It crosses eight different portfolios, from Education to the Treasury. Read more about it in the bills digest.

For example, the bill:

No No Passed by a modest majority

15th Sep 2016, 9:12 PM – Senate Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - ARENA funding

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add:

, but the Senate condemns this bill for ripping $500 million from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency's clean energy innovation grants as a dangerous and irresponsible act of sabotage, especially in a climate emergency and global transition to clean energy, and because it leaves the Coalition and Labor parties with no meaningful plan to meet Australia's Renewable Energy Target and pollution reduction target agreed at the Paris climate conference.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

3rd May 2016, 4:02 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Australian Renewable Energy Agency

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that called for the Senate to resolve that funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) won't be reduced. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) how well positioned Australia is to take advantage of the huge jobs and commercial opportunities from investing in research and development in clean energy technologies,

(ii) That the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) is the institution that will enable us to be global leaders in clean technology innovation, and

(iii) That the 2014 Budget proposed $1.3 billion in cuts to ARENA for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 which have so far been blocked but which have caused considerable uncertainty for ARENA; and

(b) resolves That the $1.5 billion of currently legislated funding for ARENA for the financial years 2016-17 to 2021-22 will not be reduced.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

17th Mar 2016, 12:39 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Support a rapid transition to clean energy

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. It called for the government to stop supporting new coal mining developments and start supporting a rapid transition to clean energy.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, stated on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Q&A program that Australia is 'losing the battle' against global warming,

(ii) Professor Terry Hughes has told 'The Conversation' that Australia can either develop new coal mines or protect the Great Barrier Reef, but 'we can't possibly do both',

(iii) coral bleaching caused by global warming has already caused the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to raise its bleaching alert to Level 2, and the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has upgraded its Coral Reef Watch warning for the far northern Great Barrier Reef to Alert Level 2, the highest threat level, and

(iv) the mining and burning of coal is driving dangerous global warming which threatens the Great Barrier Reef; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to abandon its support for the Adani mega coal mine and Abbot Point coal port expansion, and support a rapid transition to 100 per cent clean energy as soon as possible, and at least 90 per cent clean energy by 2030.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

9th Sep 2015, 4:28 PM – Senate Motions - Newcastle City Council Investment Policies - Environmental investment

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Newcastle City Council recently passed an update to its investment policies that notes the Council's preference for environmentally and socially responsible investment, and notes reports that this policy will see the Council shift its investments away from coal and fossil fuels,

(ii) the decision has been heavily criticised by the Minister for Industry and Science (Mr Macfarlane), despite warnings from scientists that Australia must act to stave off catastrophic climate change, and

(iii) an opinion poll conducted after the Council's decision found that only one in four Newcastle residents think investing in coal is financially safe; and

(b) congratulates the Newcastle City Council on updating its investment policy and joining councils across New South Wales, such as Lake Macquarie City Council, Willoughby Council, the City of Sydney, Marrickville Council, Leichhardt Council and Lismore City Council, in adopting policies regarding environmentally and socially responsible investment.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

23rd Jun 2015, 11:03 PM – Senate Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill (in parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time).

Purpose of the bill

The bill amends the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme by, for example, reducing the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) and replacing the requirement for two-yearly reviews of the operation of the RET scheme with annual statements by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER). Further detail is available in the bills digest.

Read more on ABC News.

No No Passed by a modest majority

17th Jun 2015, 6:02 PM – Senate Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree to 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).

Main idea of the bill

The bill amends the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme by, for example, reducing the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) and replacing the requirement for two-yearly reviews of the operation of the RET scheme with annual statements by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER). Further detail is available in the bills digest.

No No Passed by a modest majority

28th Oct 2014, 4:07 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Acknowledge massive economic benefits

Show detail

The majority supported acknowledging "the massive economic benefits" of the black coal mining industry.

Wording of the motion

National Party Senator Barry O'Sullivan wanted the Senate to acknowledge:

the massive economic benefits delivered to this nation by the black coal industry and the importance it has for the employment fortunes of miners and other professionals in this nation, noting that Australia should maintain a diverse and sensible energy mix.

Background to the motion

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Government has been criticised for being too in favour of coal mining at the expense of addressing climate change (for example, see ABC News).

No No Passed by a modest majority

17th Jul 2014, 10:41 AM – Senate Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 — In Committee — Funding to ARENA

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion "that schedule 5 stand as printed", which means that the schedule will remain unchanged. This motion was put in response to an amendment to oppose that schedule, which was introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne.

Schedule 5 amends the funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency ('ARENA').(Read more about this schedule in the explanatory memorandum. ) Senator Milne explained that "if the government's schedule stands, ARENA's funding would drop from just over a billion dollars down to $341 million".(Read Senator Milne's full explanation and the associated debate here, after 10.28 am. )

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills were introduced to repeal the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.(See that division here. ) The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.(See that division here. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News here or on the World Today here.)

The bills included in this package are the following:

No No Passed by a small majority

10th Jul 2014, 12:12 PM – Senate Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] - In Committee - Schedule 5

Show detail

This division relates to the Policy For a carbon price.

The majority voted against a motion "that schedule 5 stand as printed", which means that the majority opposed the schedule.

This motion was put in response to an earlier motion to oppose schedule 5 introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne. Schedule 5 provides for a reduction in funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.(Read more about schedule 5 in the bill's explanatory memorandum. )

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2) and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the second time that this package of bills has been introduced, after they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage the first time round.(See that division here. )

The other related bills that were introduced along with the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2) are:

The Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 (No. 2) was previously rejected in the Senate at second reading stage.(See that division here.)

No No Not passed by a small majority

18th Jun 2014, 11:46 AM – Senate Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2] - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.(Read more about the stages a bill must pass through here. ) This means that the majority reject the main idea of the bill and that it will no longer be considered.

Because this is the second time this bill has been rejected in the Senate (see below), it is potentially a trigger for a double dissolution. However, it is up to the Government to use it to call a full Senate and House of Representatives election.(Read more on ABC News here. )

Background to the bill

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 (No. 2) was introduced after the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 was rejected in the Senate last year.(See that division here.)

The bill has been introduced to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which was created by the previous Labor Government with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012. It is a fund dedicated to investing in renewable energy generation.

References

No No Not passed by a small majority

10th Dec 2013, 2:02 PM – Senate Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 — Second Reading — Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that: the bill, as amended, now be read a second time.

This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill, which was to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Background to the bill

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation was created by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012, which was introduced while the Australian Labor Party was in government. It is a fund dedicated to investing in renewable energy generation.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013 was introduced into Parliament as part of a package of eleven bills to remove the carbon pricing mechanism and abolish both the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority.(Read more about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation here and the Climate Change Authority here.)

The ten other bills are:

No No Not passed by a small majority

28th Feb 2013, 11:30 AM – Senate Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to read the bill for a second time.

This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the act, which was to provide the Clean Energy Regulator with powers to ensure that accredited power stations that are wind farms do not create excessive noise.(Read more about the bill here, including its explanatory memorandum. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced by Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan, also on behalf of Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

Currently, there are questions about whether the noise generated by wind farms may cause health problems.(For example, read about the divided reactions surrounding a proposed major wind farm project in South Australia here. ) However, this is widely disputed.(For example, the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority rejected the link between wind farms and health almost a month before this vote took place (see here. ) These concerns reflect similar debates around the world in communities that are affected by wind farms.(Read more about these debates here.)

References

No No Not passed by a small majority

20th Sep 2012, 12:03 PM – Senate Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012 - Reference to Committee

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan on behalf of himself and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

The motion was:

That the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012 be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced by Senator Madigan, also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, to provide the Clean Energy Regulator with powers to ensure that accredited power stations that are wind farms do not create excessive noise.(Read more about the bill here, including its explanatory memorandum. )

Currently, there are questions about whether the noise generated by wind farms may cause health problems.(For example, read about the divided reactions surrounding a proposed major wind farm project in South Australia here. ) However, this is widely disputed.(For example, the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority rejected the link between wind farms and health almost a month before this vote took place (see here. ) These concerns reflect similar debates around the world in communities that are affected by wind farms.(Read more about these debates here.)

References

No No Not passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2012, 8:28 PM – Senate Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.

Its purpose was to establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

This means that the majority of senators agree that the bill should be passed in the Senate. Since the bill has already passed in the House of Representatives, the bill can now become law.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as a body corporate and establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Special Account.(Learn more about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation on Radio National Breakfast. ) The development and managing of this account is referred at as the 'investment mandate'.(Read more about the investment mandate here. See also the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate Direction 2013 here.) Its purpose is to invest strategically in renewable energy, low emissions and energy efficiency projects and technologies in Australia.

References

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2012, 8:24 PM – Senate Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.

This means that the majority of senators agree with the main idea of the bill, which was to establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Now the bill can be discussed in greater detail.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as a body corporate and establish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Special Account.(Learn more about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation on Radio National Breakfast. ) The development and managing of this account is referred at as the 'investment mandate'.(Read more about the investment mandate here. See also the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate Direction 2013 here.) Its purpose is to invest strategically in renewable energy, low emissions and energy efficiency projects and technologies in Australia.

References

Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

15th Mar 2012, 12:12 PM – Senate Motions - Coal - From coal to clean energy market

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which means the motion was unsuccessful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) China's twelfth 5 year plan is expected to introduce caps on coal use from 2015,

(ii) the price of coking coal has already dropped some 40 per cent in the past year, due in large part to a drop in China's demand for imported coal,

(iii) China expects utility scale solar power to out-compete new coal-fired power stations by the end of the decade, while the Indian Government expects the cost crossover as soon as 2016,

(iv) India's economic giant, Tata Power, has publicly stated that its new investments will favour renewable energy, as coal power is becoming 'impossible' to develop,

(v) the Australian Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics (BREE) continues to predict that coal exports will double over the next two decades, and

(vi) Australia is leaving itself economically exposed by focusing on the development of coal export infrastructure; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) require BREE to review its modelling based on the current geopolitics of coal, and

(ii) rethink Australia's economic settings, which assume ongoing increases in the coal export market, and instead look to broaden Australia's economic base and build a more competitive clean energy economy.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

8th Feb 2012, 4:30 PM – Senate Motions - Wind Farms - Act on the Community Affairs References Committee's recommendations

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of an amendment introduced by Senator Simon Birmingham.

The original motion that Senator Birmingham wanted to amend was introduced by Senator John Madigan. It was:

"That the Senate—

(a) notes that on 23 June 2011 the Community Affairs References Committee tabled its final report,(Read the full report here (2.7 MB). Read the Government's response to the report's recommendations here (344 KB). More information about the health concerns related to wind farms is available here.) Social and economic impact of rural wind farms containing seven recommendations, including recommendations calling for studies on the effects of wind farms on human health; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) immediately act on the committee's recommendations in the report, and

(ii) support a moratorium on the construction of further wind turbines until the recommendations have been satisfactorily addressed."

Senator Birmingham's amendment to this motion was:

"That the Senate—

Omit subparagraph (b)(ii), so that paragraph (b) now reads:

(b) calls on the Government to immediately act on the committee's recommendations in the report."

References

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

How "voted very strongly for" 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 2 100 100
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 21 210 210
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 311 312

*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 = 311 / 312 = 100%.

And then