How Glenn Lazarus voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should allow companies to mine coal seam (CSG), tight and shale gas

Division Glenn Lazarus Supporters vote Division outcome

5th Mar 2015 – Senate Motions — Coal Seam Gas

Show detail

Senator Larissa Waters moved the following motion:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  • (i) the Victorian National Party announced in February 2015 that they 'support landowners having the right to say no to coal seam gas extraction activity on their land',

  • (ii) the National, Liberal and Labor parties voted down the Greens' Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2013 in March 2014, a bill which would have given landholders the right to say no to coal seam gas extraction activity on their land, and

(b) the Greens re-introduced the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill on 4 March 2015; and

(b) agrees that landowners anywhere in Australia should have the right to say no to coal seam gas extraction activity on their land.

Yes No (strong) Not passed by a small majority

3rd Mar 2015 – Senate Motions — Liverpool Plains

Show detail

Greens Senator for Queensland Larissa Waters moved that the Senate:

(a) notes that:

  • (i) the Liverpool Plains is one of the most important agricultural regions in Australia with rare and highly productive black soils, excellent water resources and a favourable local climate,

  • (ii) farming has occurred on the Liverpool Plains for generations and the agricultural productivity of the area is up to 40 per cent above the national average for all farming regions of Australia,

  • (iii) highly productive agricultural land, like that of the Liverpool Plains, is a finite resource,

  • (iv) the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission has recently approved the development of Chinese state-owned company Shenhua's Watermark open-cut coal mine on the Liverpool Plains, which will extract 268 million tonnes of coal over 30 years, 3 kilometres from the town of Breeza,

  • (v) farmers in the region are angry and extremely concerned that if this coal mine goes ahead their soils and the highly interconnected groundwater aquifers they rely on will be irreversibly damaged,

  • (vi) the Northern Daily Leader reported on 4 July 2014 That the Minister for Agriculture (Mr Joyce) said, 'I think the idea of a coalmine on the Breeza Plains is an absurdity' and 'I think it's most likely that it's going to have a deleterious effect on the aquifers', and

  • (vii) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported on 9 September 2014 that the Minister for Agriculture said of the Liverpool Plains, 'I've always said from the start that I don't believe that it is the appropriate place for a coal mine'; and

(b) believes That the Liverpool Plains should be permanently off limits to coal mining and coal seam gas extraction.

Yes No Not passed by a modest majority

9th Jul 2014, 3:51 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Right to say no

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion moved by Senator Penny Wright related to coal seam gas. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the importance of protecting valuable agricultural, residential and conservation land from unconventional gas activities;

(b) supports the right of landholders and local residents to say 'no' to unconventional gas exploration and mining in their communities;

(c) recognises the concerns expressed by communities in the south east of South Australia over potential groundwater contamination from unconventional gas activities; and

(d) congratulates the South East Local Government Association in South Australia for standing up for their local communities and voting for a moratorium on unconventional gas.

absent No 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 3 0 150
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 1 192

*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 = 1 / 192 = 0.52%.

And then