How Cory Bernardi voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage sites

Division Cory Bernardi Supporters vote Division outcome

3rd May 2016, 3:57 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Radioactive Waste

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam that was against the nomination of Barndioota site in the Flinders Ranges for the National Radioactive Waste project.

Read more about the nomination in ABC News.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 27 November 2015 the Adnyamathanha traditional owners released a statement outlining their opposition to the nomination of Barndioota station to host a National Radioactive Waste facility with the statement detailing environmental conditions in the area, including flooding and yarta ngurra-ngurrandha (earthquakes and tremors), the importance of ground water and many mound springs close to the proposed site,

(ii) on 29 April 2016 press releases were issued from three different organisations that represent the Adnyamathanha traditional owners detailing their opposition to the nomination of Barndioota station,

(iii) the area is of cultural significance to Adnyamathanha,

(iv) Yappala was declared an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) by the Federal Government in 2014,

(v) there is extensive archaeological evidence of occupation in the surrounding area, and

(vi) there has been a lack of consultation with Adnyamathanha; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) acknowledge the opposition from the Adnyamathanha traditional owners, and

(ii) respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent, and remove the Barndioota site as a nominated site.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

19th Mar 2013, 3:50 PM – Senate Motions - Quinkan Rock Art Galleries - Protect from mining activities

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, which means that it was unsuccessful. The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes that:

(i) Cape York's Quinkan region is home to rock art galleries and cultural sites of great cultural significance, with some sites dated to 30 000 years old,

(ii) much of this art and cultural heritage is not adequately protected and is open to mining exploration activities, and

(iii) the traditional owners of the Quinkan region want the Quinkan rock art galleries and surrounding cultural landscapes fully protected from mining exploration and other destructive activities, and support its inclusion in a World Heritage nomination for Cape York Peninsula; and

(b) calls on:

(i) the Queensland Government to refuse any mining exploration in the Quinkan rock art galleries until the area is declared a World Heritage Area, and

(ii) the Federal Government to step in to protect the Quinkan rock art galleries and surrounding cultural landscapes from all mining activities, until the area is declared a World Heritage Area in accordance with the wishes of the traditional owners.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

16th Aug 2006, 3:57 PM – Senate Motions - Burrup Peninsula Rock Art - Protect rock art

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, which means that it is rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes that:

(i) at least 10 000 petroglyphs have been destroyed by industrial development on Western Australia’s Burrup Peninsula, arguably the world’s greatest rock art site,

(ii) while alternative sites for industry exist, the rock art is unique and irreplaceable, and

(iii) the area has been nominated to the National Heritage List and this nomination is currently undergoing assessment; and

(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to use all Commonwealth powers available to ensure that no further loss of rock art occurs while the heritage nomination is being determined.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a large majority

How "voted 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 2 0 100
MP absent 1 25 50
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 2 0 20
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 25 170

*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 = 25 / 170 = 15%.

And then