How Andrew McLachlan voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation and regulations that protect and conserve Australia's marine ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef

Division Andrew McLachlan Supporters vote Division outcome

27th Feb 2020, 12:31 PM – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Climate change

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Great Barrier Reef supports approximately 64,000 jobs and generates $6 billion for the Australian economy annually,

(ii) approximately half of the shallow water coral of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost since 2016 due to successive coral bleaching incidents,

(iii) the Centre for Tourism and Regional Opportunities has reported a dramatic decline in domestic tourism since successive coral bleaching events,

(iv) in February 2020, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority survey teams found significant bleaching at three reefs in the Shelburne Bay and Wuthathi region of the Great Barrier Reef,

(v) current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Watch forecasts show a heightened risk of a mass bleaching events in the Great Barrier Reef in the coming weeks, and

(vi) climate change remains the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) implement a climate policy that accelerates actions to limit global warming to 1.5°C to protect the Great Barrier Reef and the jobs that it supports,

(ii) take all action necessary to properly protect the Great Barrier Reef and avoid the UNESCO World Heritage Committee needing to place the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage In Danger List, and

(iii) develop a clear plan to move Australia towards 100% clean energy, including a plan for a just transition for Australia's regional workforces so that regional economies can thrive and workers are protected.

No Yes 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 Yes 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 Yes 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.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest 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 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 3 0 30
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 1 32

*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 = 1 / 32 = 3.1%.

And then