How Susan McDonald voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should give greater environmental approval powers to state and territory governments by creating a single environmental assessment and approval process for nationally protected matters that is administered at state and territory level

Division Susan McDonald Supporters vote Division outcome

18th Feb 2021, 12:35 PM – Senate Motions - Environmental Legislation - National standards

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of clauses (a) and (c) of motion 1009, which means they succeeded. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own, but they are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Professor Graeme Samuel is an eminent and experienced regulator, and his review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 marks a significant opportunity for reform to protect the environment and create jobs,

(ii) the Morrison Government has completely bungled this opportunity for reform by:

(A) pre-empting the findings of their own independent review,

(B) rehashing Tony Abbott's failed 2014 environment bill, ramming the failed bill through the lower house and gagging debate, and

(C) ignoring and cherry-picking the recommendations from the report, and pursuing second rate so-called standards,

(iii) the Morrison Government was starting from a low base given it has:

(A) slashed 40% from environment department funding, and

(B) presided over an explosion of 510% in job and investment delays through environmental decision blow-outs, and

(iv) Australia's bushfire ravaged natural environment, industry groups, scientists, and communities across the nation have been crying out for measured, durable and effective reform;

(b) [...]; and

(c) calls on the Morrison Government to introduce strong national environmental standards, establish a genuinely independent 'cop on the beat' for Australia's environment and fix the explosion in job and investment delays caused by their massive funding cuts.

No No Passed by a small majority

How "voted consistently 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 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 10 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 = 10 / 10 = 100%.

And then