How Ian Macdonald voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should protect Australia's logging industry and the jobs it represents

Division Ian Macdonald Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Aug 2015 – Senate Motions - Tasmania: Timber Industry - Support

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Barry O'Sullivan (Nationals), which means it succeeded. 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) That the Tasmanian specialty timber industry accounts for over 2 000 full time equivalent jobs, thousands more part time hobbyists and contributes over $70 million a year to the state's economy,

(ii) the support of both the Tasmanian Premier (Mr Hodgman) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Green) for the long term sustainability of the iconic specialty timber industry, and

(iii) That the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party previously supported the continued low impact harvesting of special species timber in the 2013 extension of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; and

(b) calls on the Australian Greens to abandon their policy backflip and work with the Tasmanian Government to protect the future of the mostly small scale businesses that produce high value products that embody the essence of Tasmania's culture and history.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2013, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area - Prohibit logging

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to prohibit logging in Australia's World Heritage areas.

Motion wording

That the Senate—

(a) welcomes the World Heritage listing of the extension to Tasmania's Wilderness World Heritage area decided at the World Heritage Committee meeting of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] on 24 June 2013;

(b) supports the values of Australia's World Heritage listed areas and the provision of adequate funding to maintain their natural and cultural values; and

(c) supports a total prohibition on logging in any World Heritage areas in Australia, now and into the future.

No No Passed by a small majority

20th Jun 2013, 12:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Parks - Protect

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to protect Australia's national parks, which was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Australians are outraged that our national parks are under threat from logging, grazing, shooting and tourism developments, and

(ii) it is too late to secure by regulation national protection for national parks in this parliamentary term; and

(b) calls on the Government to act on its promise to protect our national parks by amending the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 before this Parliament rises.

absent No Not passed by a modest majority

11th May 2010, 4:22 PM – Senate Motions - Environment: Millewa Forest - Stop logging

Show detail
absent No Not passed by a large majority

29th Nov 2006, 3:45 PM – Senate Motions - Logging in Tasmania’s Weld River Valley - Halt logging

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Bob Brown.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate calls for a halt to all logging destruction in Tasmania’s Weld River valley until and unless:

(a) the Government completes a World Heritage evaluation of the forests;

(b) the Tasmanian Government shows that there is no prudent or feasible option to that destruction;

(c) an independent evaluation of the valley’s long-term economic value, including its tourism potential and carbon sink value, has been completed; and

(d) the full loss of water, carbon, biodiversity and honey production value from the destruction proposed is known.

absent No Not passed by a large majority

How "voted 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 3 3 6
Total: 23 26

*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 = 23 / 26 = 88%.

And then