How Alex Antic voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should support offshore petroleum mining by, for example, granting exploration and drilling licences

Division Alex Antic Supporters vote Division outcome

27th Aug 2020, 12:35 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Ban offshore oil and gas exploration

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by WA Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) each year the Australian Government releases areas in Australian waters for oil and gas exploration,

(ii) the 2020 Offshore Petroleum Exploration Acreage Release was announced on 26 August 2020 by the Honourable Keith Pitt MP, Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia,

(iii) new areas have been released in Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and

(iv) a number of areas across Australia have already been opened or proposed for oil and gas exploration including the World Heritage listed Ningaloo Reef, the Great Australian Bight, the New South Wales coast under Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 (PEP11), the Otway Basin and Lakes Entrance in Victoria and Tasmania's King Island;

(b) acknowledges that:

(i) seismic exploration and drilling pose a risk to our oceans,

(ii) further research into the impacts of oil and gas exploration on marine life and ecosystems needs to be conducted,

(iii) the New Zealand Government will no longer issue new offshore oil and gas exploration permits, and

(iv) in a time of climate emergency, there is a need to transition to clean energy; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to ban all new offshore oil and gas exploration.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

17th Jun 2020, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Protect Ningaloo Reef, Shark Bay, and the Exmouth Gulf

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by WA Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that, as part of the acreage release process, the Government is asking industry to nominate areas they are interested in for oil and gas exploration around Ningaloo Reef, Shark Bay, and the Exmouth Gulf;

(b) acknowledges that:

(i) the Exmouth Gulf is a rare and precious estuarine system and crucial to the health of the World Heritage listed Ningaloo Reef,

(ii) Ningaloo Reef is one of the world's last healthy coral reefs and is home to humpback whales, whale sharks, dugongs, sawfish, turtles, and seagrass,

(iii) Shark Bay is World Heritage listed, satisfying all four criteria for natural heritage values, and is home to stromatolites which are among the oldest forms of life on earth,

(iv) any seismic exploration and drilling could have a devastating environmental impact on these areas, and

(v) areas south of the Pilbara are too environmentally sensitive to risk; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to remove Ningaloo Reef, Shark Bay, and the Exmouth Gulf from the acreage release process.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

26th Feb 2020, 4:06 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Great Australian Bight as world heritage

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Norwegian oil company Equinor, has announced it is discontinuing its exploration drilling plans in the Great Australian Bight,

(ii) this is an opportunity to celebrate the pristine and precious Great Australian Bight and to protect it for future generations and the rest of the world to come and experience,

(iii) the Bight is ecologically and environmentally significant and home to some of the most unique wildlife in the world with 85% of marine life found in the Bight found nowhere else,

(iv) Australia Institute Research has shown that more than 4 in 5 South Australians (84%) and 7 in 10 Australians want to see the Bight given World Heritage protection, and

(v) in July 2018, the South Australian Parliament called on the state government to work with the federal government to seek listing under the World Heritage Convention of the waters, seabed and coastline of the Great Australian Bight as a matter of urgency; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to submit the Great Australian Bight for consideration as a World Heritage Site.

No No Not passed by a large majority

10th Feb 2020, 7:43 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Cancel permit

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Senator Mehreen Faruqi (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Asset Energy has announced that it will not proceed with plans for seismic testing in the Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 zone, which was originally planned for thousands of square kilometres of ocean from Newcastle through the Central Coast to Manly in New South Wales,

(ii) while this is welcome news for ocean life, exploration through drilling could occur soon causing irreversible damage to the marine environment, and

(iii) there is a climate emergency and further coal, gas or oil reserves should not be developed if we have any chance of preventing more than 1 degrees of warming; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to cancel Petroleum Exploration Permit 11.

No No Not passed by a large majority

6th Feb 2020, 12:32 PM – Senate Motions - Oil Exploration - Great Australian Bight

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate notes—

(a) that Norwegian oil giant, Equinor, has received its second of four rounds of approvals from the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, the government regulator responsible for oversight into exploratory petroleum drilling in the Great Australian Bight;

(b) the deep community opposition to 'big oil' drilling in one of our most pristine ocean environments and sites of natural heritage in the world; and

(c) that tens of thousands of Australians continue to fight for the Bight, in forums both formal and informal, as communities across the country unite to reject Equinor's disastrous plan.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

2nd Dec 2019, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions - Great Australian Bight - Protect from oil exploration

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Norwegian oil giant, Equinor, plans to drill for oil in the pristine ocean environment of the Great Australian Bight,

(ii) the majority of Australians oppose the plan, recognising that there is no safe way to drill for oil in the remote, rough seas of the Bight and it is not worth the environmental or economic risks, and three out of four South Australians stated in an Advertiser survey, released on 22 November 2019, they would not support it even if it would drive down their fuel prices,

(iii) on 23 November 2019, a National Day of Action was held to Fight for the Bight, which saw more than 10,000 people attend more than 50 events across the country from Exmouth, Western Australia, to Townsville, Queensland, and on some of Australia's most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Manly, Bells Beach, Byron Bay, Margaret River and Currumbin, and

(iv) according to the most recent polling from The Australia Institute, Australians want to see the Great Australian Bight protected, and more than four in five South Australians (84%) support World Heritage protection for the Bight; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) back the calls of the majority of Australians and tell Equinor that they are not welcome here, and

(ii) protect the Great Australian Bight by listing it as a World Heritage site.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

13th Nov 2019, 4:53 PM – Senate Motions - Great Australian Bight - Foreign company

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate notes that:

(a) Norwegian company Equinor has an application before the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight;

(b) NOPSEMA has rejected Equinor's environment plan stating that Equinor must provide it with further information about matters relating to consultation, source control, oil spill risk, and matters protected under Part 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

(c) modelling commissioned by The Australia Institute shows Equinor will pay the Norwegian Government more than it will pay in Australian Government taxes, and up to 27 times more than it will pay to the South Australian Government;

(d) if Equinor's application is ultimately approved by NOPSEMA, a foreign-owned company will therefore take the vast majority of financial gains while exploiting and putting at risk our precious marine and coastal environment, and tens of thousands of tourism and fishing industry jobs; and

(e) the ecological and environmental significance of the Great Australian Bight is, in fact, priceless.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

16th Oct 2019, 4:40 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change, Petroleum Industry - No new coal, oil or gas projects

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by West Australian Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that the very first step in dealing with the climate crisis is that no new coal, oil or gas projects can be built;

(b) notes the in-depth research by the International Energy Agency that global carbon budgets cannot afford a single new coal, oil or gas project to proceed in order to stay below 1 degrees of warming, as committed to under the Paris Agreement; and

(c) concludes that the Adani coalmine in Queensland, fracking the Beetaloo Gas Basin in the Northern Territory and drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight are incompatible with any declaration of a climate emergency.

No No Not passed by a large majority

How "voted strongly 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 7 70 70
MP voted against policy 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 70 80

*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 = 70 / 80 = 88%.

And then