How Nigel Scullion voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should support MacMines' plans to build the China Stone coal mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin

Division Nigel Scullion Supporters vote Division outcome

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.

absent No Not passed by a modest majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Nigel Scullion was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.