How Mary Fisher voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should support the exportation of uranium from Australia

Division Mary Fisher Supporters vote Division outcome

22nd Mar 2012, 1:46 PM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Energy - India and other countries standing outside the NPT

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it has been rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that a crackdown by over 6 000 police on non-violent anti-nuclear power protestors, including arrests for sedition and the prohibition on people congregating, occurred at the construction site of a nuclear reactor near the fishing village of Koodankulam in south India on 19 March and 20 March 2012,

(ii) that 20 000 people gathered on 20 March 2012 with thousands on an indefinite hunger strike until the non-violent protestors are released,

(iii) a growing mass movement in India opposed to nuclear power includes protests in Jaitapur, Maharashtra and Gorakhpur, Haryana,

(iv) the sale of uranium to India while that country refuses to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) would be illegal under the Treaty of Rarotonga, signed by the Australian Government in 1985,

(v) the 1998 United National Security Council resolution 1172 'encourages all States to prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist programmes in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, and welcomes national policies adopted and declared in this respect', and

(vi) the Nuclear Security Summit will be held on 26 March and 27 March 2012 in South Korea; and

(b) calls on the Government to utilise all diplomatic channels to:

(i) protest the Indian Government's unprecedented deployment of police around Koodankulam and the harassment of peaceful protestors as inconsistent with the democratic right to peaceful protest,

(ii) caution the Indian Government against loading uranium fuel rods into the reactor at Koodankulam without conducting any safety or evacuation drills, mandatory exercises under the Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board rules,

(iii) promote the independence of nuclear regulators from industry and government as best international practice, and

(iv) not sell uranium to countries that stand outside the NPT and its associated safeguards system.

absent No Not passed by a modest majority

23rd Nov 2011 – Senate Motions — Uranium Exports - For export of uranium to India

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the Howard Government's 2007 decision to sell uranium to India subject to appropriate bilateral and international safeguards;

(b) calls on the Australian Labor Party National Conference to approve the sale of Australian uranium to India;

(c) looks forwards to the improved trade and security relations with India which will flow from this initiative;

(d) recognises the positive contribution nuclear energy makes to reducing greenhouse emissions; and

(e) rejects the view that alternative technologies can provide a comparable low emissions baseload energy source for India.

Yes Yes Not passed by a small majority

31st Oct 2011 – Senate Motions — Nuclear Nonproliferation - Identify countries that won't sell to

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) congratulates the Government for maintaining Australia's longstanding policy of predicating bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements on the condition of membership to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and

(b) calls on the Government to identify the countries to which it will not permit the sale of uranium.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

12th Nov 2008, 3:51 PM – Senate Motions — Uranium Exports — Take into account public opinion and the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes the uranium study conducted by NewsPoll for the Australian Conservation Foundation over the weekend of 1 November and 2 November 2008, which shows that:

(i) Australians are 2:1 against uranium exports to countries with nuclear weapons,

(ii) 40 per cent of Australians are against the export of Australian uranium to any country for use in nuclear power plants for electricity generation,

(iii) a majority of Australians in every state are opposed to uranium exports to countries with nuclear weapons or against any uranium exports at all, and

(iv) results show 48 per cent of women are against uranium exports to any country, and a total of 73 per cent of women are against uranium exports to countries with nuclear weapons that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and

(b) calls on the Government to take this strong indication of public opinion into account as it makes a decision on the clear recommendations provided by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Australia-Russia uranium agreement signed by former Prime Minister Howard and the then President Putin in 2007.(You can read the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report here.)

References

absent No Not passed by a large majority

15th Aug 2007, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Nuclear Non—Proliferation - Do not sell to non-NPT parties

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),

(ii) the United States of America (US) and India have agreed to the terms of a deal to exempt India from US laws and international rules that seek to prevent states that are not parties to the NPT from using commercial imports of nuclear technology and fuel to aid their nuclear weapons ambitions,

(iii) under the India-US nuclear deal two reactors dedicated to making plutonium for nuclear weapons and nine power reactors, including a plutonium breeder reactor that is under construction, will be outside international safeguards,

(iv) India needs to import uranium to relieve an acute fuel shortage for its existing nuclear reactors and that importing uranium will free up more of India’s domestic uranium for its military program,

(v) Pakistan has expressed its fears about the India-US nuclear deal, and

(vi) any sale of Australian uranium to India would contravene the NPT; and

(b) calls on the Government to reject any sale of Australian uranium to non-NPT states, including India.

No No Not passed by a small majority

13th Aug 2007, 3:54 PM – Senate Motions - Nuclear Nonproliferation - Block moves to exempt India from NSG rules

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is an intergovernmental body concerned with reducing nuclear proliferation by controlling the export and re-transfer of materials, including uranium, that may be applicable to the development of nuclear weapons,

(ii) the NSG was founded in 1975 in response to the Indian nuclear test of the previous year, a test which demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific nuclear technology could be readily used for weapons development, and

(iii) the NSG makes decisions by consensus, which means that each of the 45 NSG members, including Australia, must agree to the change of any rule, including those rules which prevent the export of uranium to non- Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states such as India; and

(b) calls on the Government to use its position in the NSG to block the submission to exempt India from the NSG rules preventing the supply of uranium to states which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

No No Not passed by a large majority

8th Aug 2007, 3:45 PM – Senate Motions — India and the Nuclear Non—Proliferation Treaty — Encourage to sign

Show detail

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

(a) notes that:

(i) India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),

(ii) the United States of America (US) and India have agreed to the terms of a deal to exempt India from US laws and international rules that seek to prevent states that are not parties to the NPT from using commercial imports of nuclear technology and fuel to aid their nuclear weapons ambitions,

(iii) under the India-US nuclear deal two reactors dedicated to making plutonium for nuclear weapons and nine power reactors, including a plutonium breeder reactor that is under construction, will be outside international safeguards,

(iv) India needs to import uranium to relieve an acute fuel shortage for its existing nuclear reactors and that importing uranium will free up more of India’s domestic uranium for its military program,

(v) Pakistan has expressed its fears about the India-US nuclear deal, and

(vi) any sale of Australian uranium would contravene the NPT; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) reject any sale of Australian uranium to non-NPT states,

(ii) encourage India to join the NPT, and

(iii) use its position in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to block the submission to give India an exemption from the NSG rules preventing the supply of uranium to non-NPT states.

No No Not passed by a large majority

18th Jun 2007, 3:46 PM – Senate Motions - Uranium Exports - No export to Russia

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Christine Milne, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the use of a nuclear by-product, polonium-210, sourced from the Russian Federation (Russia) in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko,

(ii) that Russia supplies nuclear materials to Iran,

(iii) that Russia is in talks with the military regime in Myanmar with a view to supplying nuclear materials to that regime, and(Read more about the military regime in Myanmar on Wikipedia here.)

(iv) that, following attacks on freedom of the press and the murders of several journalists in Russia, the Committee to Protect Journalists rates Russia as the third most dangerous country in the world for journalists, after Iraq and Afghanistan; and

(b) calls on the Government not to sell uranium to Russia.

References

No No Not passed by a large majority

How "voted very 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 6 60 60
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 2 2 4
Total: 62 64

*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 = 62 / 64 = 97%.

And then