How Sue Boyce voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should protect threatened forest and bushland habitats from logging.

Division Sue Boyce Supporters vote Division outcome

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 Yes (strong) 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 Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

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

Show detail
absent Yes Not passed by a large majority

19th Mar 2009, 9:49 AM – Senate Motions - Protect the Swift Parrot - Deliberate Actions and Recovery Plan

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Senator Bob Brown, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate noting the words of the Government (Minister for Human Services, Senator Ludwig) in the Senate on 17 March 2009 that, ‘Under the EPBC Act the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts can do much more than prevent any deliberate actions which would increase the prospect of the swift parrot going to extinction’:

(a) calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (Mr Garrett) to act, well within these powers, to prevent any deliberate action which would increase the prospect of Australia’s swift parrot becoming extinct; and

(b) calls on the Government to inform the Senate by 12 May 2009 whether the swift parrot recovery plans meet International Union for the Conservation of Nature requirements.

absent Yes Not passed by a large majority

4th Dec 2008, 10:39 AM – Senate Motions - Koala Habitat - Protect Bermagui habitat

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to protect koala habitat in the Bermagui region, which was introduced by Greens Senator Bob Brown.

Motion wording

That the Senate—

(a) welcomes the reported decision of the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment (Ms Tebbutt) to spend $1.23 million on a recovery plan for koalas, including revegetating koala habitat; and

(b) calls on the New South Wales Government to halt logging of any koala habitat forest including that in the Bermagui region on the state’s south coast.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a large 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 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 50
MP absent 2 50 100
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* 2 2 4
Total: 52 154

*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 = 52 / 154 = 34%.

And then