How Joe Ludwig voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should always consult with local communities that may be affected by infrastructure projects, especially for major infrastructure projects such as dams, pulp mills or nuclear facilities

Division Joe Ludwig Supporters vote Division outcome

23rd Jun 2014, 9:38 PM – Senate Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 - in Committee - Local community consultation

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Party Senator Scott Ludlam.

What was the amendment?

Senator Ludlam explained his amendment, saying that it:

once again adds local communities as a group that [the Government] should consult with in performing its functions ... This is something that goes to the heart of the way that infrastructure is done. They cannot sit in an office on the other side of the country, dropping infrastructure projects in from Google Earth. These things affect people. They actually affect local communities.

Amendment text

(14) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 28), at the end of section 6B, add:

; (c) local communities.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

17th Sep 2007, 8:14 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 - In Committee - Major infrastructure projects

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Murray, meaning it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A After paragraph 7(1)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) to conduct plebiscites in localities where major infrastructure projects are proposed.

Note: Examples of major infrastructure projects include a dam, a desalination plant, a pulp mill, a nuclear facility and harbour dredging.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the item, add:

(1H) To ensure that communities in which a major infrastructure project is to be established have authorised that establishment and have consented to the health, welfare, safety and environmental impacts and risks of the establishment of the major infrastructure project, for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(fb), a plebiscite must be conducted by the Commission in every federal electorate within 0.5km of the boundary of the major infrastructure project seeking approval for the establishment of the facility.

(1I) A major infrastructure project may not proceed unless a plebiscite has first been conducted in accordance with subsection (1H).

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 5), after item 1, insert:

1A After section 7A

Insert:

7AB Preparation of arguments for and against an infrastructure project for which a plebiscite is to be conducted

(1) A plebiscite may not be conducted in accordance with paragraph 7(1)(fb) unless an argument in favour of the proposed major infrastructure project (the project) and an argument against the proposed major infrastructure project has first been prepared in relation to the plebiscite for that major infrastructure project.

(2) The argument for and the argument against the project must include a statement consisting of not more than 2,000 words, which includes:

(a) an analysis of the costs and benefits of the project;

(b) an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project;

(c) a consideration of alternative options to the project.

(3) The argument in favour of the project may be submitted to the Electoral Commission by the chief proponent or proponents for the project.

(4) The argument against the project may be submitted to the Electoral Commission by the chief opponent or opponents of the project.

(5) The Electoral Commission must cause to be printed and to be posted to each elector within the area in which the plebiscite is to be conducted a pamphlet containing the arguments for and against the project.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a large majority

17th Sep 2007, 7:49 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 - In Committee - Nuclear sites

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Murray.

Motion text

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert;

1A After paragraph 7(1)(fa)

Insert:

(fb) to conduct plebiscites in communities in which a nuclear facility is to be established; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4, (after line 5), at the end of the item, add:

(1H) To ensure that communities in which a nuclear facility is to be established have authorised that establishment and have consented to the health, welfare, safety and environmental impacts and risks of the establishment of the nuclear facility, for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(fb), a plebiscite must be conducted by the Commission in every federal electorate within 0.5km of the boundary of the nuclear facility seeking approval for the establishment of the facility.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

How "voted moderately 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 1 50 50
MP voted against policy 2 0 100
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 50 150

*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 = 50 / 150 = 33%.

And then