How Andrew McLachlan voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should address the causes and consequences of climate change as a matter of urgency by, for example, lowering emissions and investing in science and technology

Division Andrew McLachlan Supporters vote Division outcome

11th Nov 2020, 4:20 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Take urgent action

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Victorian Senator Janet Rice (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Bureau of Meteorology has advised that Australia will face 3.4 to 4.4 degrees of heating by the turn of the century, and that the latest science indicates an approximate 20% increase in the number of days per year with dangerous fire weather conditions per degree of global heating,

(ii) more than 20% of mainland Australia's forests burned during the 2019-20 bushfires, a globally unprecedented figure,

(iii) a recent study by Dietzel et al. (2020) found that since the mid-1990s, coral along the Great Barrier Reef has declined by more than 50%, showing the ability of the reef to recover is compromised, and

(iv) the values that underpin the World Heritage listing of the Great Barrier Reef and many of Australia's forests are currently at serious risk from global heating; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) act urgently to tackle the climate crisis, consistent with keeping global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and

(ii) set an emissions reduction target for 2030 that is significantly more ambitious than Australia's existing commitment of a 26 to 28% reduction.

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

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

25th Feb 2020, 4:26 PM – Senate Motions - Gas Industry - Protect climate

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 the impacts of opening up the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory would increase Australia's emissions by a staggering 6.6% and destroy any chance of Australia helping to contain global warming below 1 degrees;

(b) acknowledges that the Liberal, National and Labor parties are supporting this destructive project because the proponents, Origin Energy and Santos have donated at least $1 million to both political parties, with at least $900,218 going to the Coalition and at least $810,353 to the Labor Party since 2012; and

(c) supports the farmers and traditional owners that do not want their water supplies threatened, their cultural heritage compromised, and the climate sacrificed if the 1,200 fracking wells planned for the Northern Territory proceed.

No 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* 0 0 0
Total: 0 30

*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 / 30 = 0.0%.

And then