How Santo Santoro voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase fishing restrictions so that fish populations are sustainable

Division Santo Santoro Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Jun 2006, 3:43 PM – Senate Motions - Sea Bottom Trawl Fishing - Address destructive impact

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) recognises that unregulated high seas bottom trawling is inconsistent with international law as recognised in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(b) notes the Australian Government’s initiatives in developing long-term governance arrangements to address destructive fishing practices such as illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and high sea bottom trawling;

(c) calls on the Government to report on its actions to inform a review of progress and future recommendations to address the destructive impacts on deep sea ecosystems, as requested by the UN, and which was to have been provided by 1 May 2006;

(d) notes that:

(i) these governance measures will take time to develop and implement and the need, therefore, for interim short-term measures, such as a global moratorium on high seas bottom trawling, and

(ii) the UN General Assembly will consider a proposal for a global moratorium on high seas bottom trawling in October or November 2006; and

(e) calls on the Government to support interim measures to address the destructive impacts of bottom trawling on deep sea ecosystems while long-term governance measures are put in place.

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

How "voted consistently 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 0 0 0
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 10

*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 / 10 = 0.0%.

And then