How Bob Brown voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should allow companies to mine coal seam (CSG), tight and shale gas

Division Bob Brown Supporters vote Division outcome

22nd Mar 2012, 1:53 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Moratorium on coal seam gas

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, which was:

That the Senate-

(a)   notes that in the past 6 months since the Greens motion for a moratorium on coal seam gas mining was first defeated in the Senate, the urgent concerns of farmers, landholders and regional communities regarding the risks posed by the runaway coal seam gas industry have not been addressed;

(b)   notes that the recent Senate inquiry into the impacts of coal seam gas mining in the Murray Darling Basin heard compelling evidence that regional communities are suffering many negative impacts from the operations of coal seam gas mining companies; and

(c)   calls on the Government to implement an immediate moratorium on any new coal seam gas approvals until the long-term impacts of the industry on groundwater, agriculture, rural communities, threatened species, the climate and the Great Barrier Reef are known.

Yes No Not passed by a modest majority

20th Mar 2012, 4:29 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Address uncertainty about coal seam gas emissions

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes:

  • (i) that there is uncertainty about the level of leakage, flaring and venting of methane during coal seam gas prospecting, extraction, transport and processing, and
  • (ii) an accurate measurement of these 'fugitive' emissions is necessary to assess the claims of the coal seam gas industry that electricity production fuelled by coal seam gas is substantially less emission intensive than electricity production fuelled by coal; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table, by 22 March 2012, the study by George Wilkenfeld and Associates Pty Ltd titled Updated scope 3 emissions factors for natural gas consumed in Australia, based on NGERS data, redacting where necessary any aspects of the study that are commercially sensitive.

Yes No Not passed by a modest majority

10th Nov 2011 – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Suspend applications and approvals until after UNESCO assessment

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

This means that the motion was not successful.

The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a)   notes:

(i)   that the Government and the Opposition did not support the Australian Greens' motion on 9 November 2011 that 'all applications and approvals made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [the Act] which would have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area to be suspended until the conclusion of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] requested strategic assessment, to allow consideration of all cumulative impacts of coal and coal seam gas ports and other developments on this internationally significant biodiversity icon',

(ii)   the comments by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities ( Mr Burke) on Four Corners on Monday, 7 November 2011, that he would 'prefer a situation where as much as possible is able to be dealt with once we've concluded the strategic assessment, but people have legal rights under law to commence the process and those processes continue in the interim', and

(iii)   the Act already provides a suspension process for applications and approvals in particular circumstances and a revocation process for approvals in particular circumstances, both without compensation rights flowing to the proponent; and

(b)   calls on the Government to:

(i)   confirm that sections 130(5), 132, 144 and 145 of the Act allow the Minister to suspend all applications and approvals made under the Act that would have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area until the conclusion of the UNESCO requested strategic assessment, and(Read more about the status of the Great Barrier Reef on UNESCO.)

(ii)   if necessary, urgently amend the Act to confer on the Minister the power to suspend all applications and approvals made under the Act that would have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area until the conclusion of the UNESCO requested strategic assessment, to allow that strategic assessment to properly consider all cumulative impacts of coal and coal seam gas ports and other developments on this internationally significant biodiversity icon.

References

Yes No Not passed by a modest majority

9th Nov 2011 – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Protect water systems and the environment

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

This means that the motion was unsuccessful.

The motion was:

That the Senate notes:

(a)   that no coal seam gas development should proceed where it poses a significant impact on the quality of groundwater or surface water systems; and

(b)   it must absolutely clear that no coal seam gas development should occur unless it is proven safe for the environment.(Read more about coal seam gas here.)

References

Yes No (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

9th Nov 2011 – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Suspend applications and approvals until after UNESCO assessment

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

This means that the motion was not successful.

The motion was:

That the Senate calls for all applications and approvals made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 which would have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area to be suspended until the conclusion of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization requested strategic assessment, to allow consideration of all cumulative impacts of coal and coal seam gas ports and other developments on this internationally significant biodiversity icon.(Read more about the status of the Great Barrier Reef on UNESCO.)

Yes No Not passed by a modest majority

13th Sep 2011 – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Moratorium on new coal seam gas approvals

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. This means that the motion is rejected.

The motion was:

That the Senate calls on the Government to implement an immediate moratorium on any new coal seam gas approvals until the long-term impacts of the industry on our groundwater, agriculture, rural communities, threatened species, the climate and the Great Barrier Reef are known.(Read more about coal seam gas here.)

References

Yes No (strong) 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 2 0 100
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 140

*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 / 140 = 0.0%.

And then