How Joe Ludwig voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should ban both direct and indirect (e.g. through parent companies) investment in cluster munitions

Division Joe Ludwig Supporters vote Division outcome

21st Aug 2012, 1:44 PM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Ban investment

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam (WA), which means it was unsuccessful.

What did this amendment do?

This amendment would ban investment in "the development or production of cluster munitions or explosive submunitions". As Senator Ludlam explained:

The bill should explicitly ban investment because it assists with a prohibited act. I struggle to see how that could be a controversial statement. Many other countries specifically ban direct and indirect investment in cluster munitions in their legislation. By 'indirect' we mean an investment in a parent company that may, through a company that it has a holding in, in fact be manufacturing components or manufacturing cluster weapons themselves.

What is this bill?

The bill will bring the Convention on Cluster Munitions into Australian law by, for example, creating offences in relation to cluster munitions and explosive bomblets.

Read more in the bills digest.

Amendment text

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 29), after subsection 72.38(2), insert:

(2A) An entity regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority commits an offence if it directly or indirectly:

(a) provides funds to a person or an entity; or

(b) invests funds in an entity;

involved in the development or production of cluster munitions or explosive submunitions.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

12th May 2011 – Senate Motions - Cluster Bombs - Extend prohibitions

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means it was rejected.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) cluster munitions are one of the most inhumane forms of weapons from a humanitarian, medical and ethical perspective,

(ii) as a 'legacy weapon' cluster munitions continue to kill and maim, affecting generations of people after conflict is over, meaning that survivors of war do not necessarily survive the peace,

(iii) during the Vietnam War, 280 million cluster bomblets were dropped on Laos, leaving at least 80 million unexploded cluster bombs in that country alone such that 37 years later, survivors are still being harmed and killed,

(iv) cluster bombs are still being used and produced internationally, with confirmed reports of their use against civilians in the Libyan conflict in April 2011,

(v) Australia is one of 108 countries that has signed the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, and

(vi) by signing the convention, Australia undertook to never under any circumstances use cluster munitions, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions, or assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention;

(b) acknowledges the bravery of 19 year old cluster bomb survivor Mr Soraj Ghulam Habib from Afghanistan and the work he is doing as an international advocate for peace and universal disarmament of cluster bombs; and

(c) calls on the Attorney-General to:

(i) urgently revise the Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 to reflect the convention which states parties should never 'under any circumstances' engage in prohibited activities related to cluster munitions,

(ii) apply the convention's prohibitions on use in joint operations with non-states parties,

(iii) urgently revise the bill in relation to jurisdiction issues which explicitly allow foreign forces to use Australian territory to stockpile and transit cluster bombs,

(iv) honour our obligations under the convention to ban all forms of both direct and indirect investment in cluster munitions and which echoes calls from the Australian financial industry and the Australian Council of Super Investors, and

(v) honour our obligations under the convention to provide assistance to ensure adequate provision of care and rehabilitation for victims of cluster munitions, clearance of contaminated areas, education and destruction of stockpiles.

No Yes Not passed by a large 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 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 60

*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 = 0 / 60 = 0.0%.

And then