How Lin Thorp 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 Lin Thorp Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Mar 2014, 1:46 PM – Senate Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills - Second Reading - Protect Australia from climate change

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Richard Di Natale.

The motion was for an amendment to be added to the end of the original motion, which was "That these bills be now read a second time."

The words were:

but the Senate:

(a) rejects this bill and the related bills;

(b) recognises that:

(i) the world is on track for 4 degrees of warming; and

(ii) warming of less than 1 degree is already intensifying extreme weather events in Australia and around the world with enormous costs to life and property;

(c) calls on the government to:

(i) protect the Australian people and environment from climate change by approving no new coal mines or extensions of existing mines, or new coal export terminals; and

(ii) adopt a trajectory of 40-60% below 2000 levels by 2030 and net carbon zero by 2050 emissions reduction target in global negotiations for a 2015 treaty.

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills were introduced as a package to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website.) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

The ten other related bills are:

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a large majority

27th Feb 2013, 4:15 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change and National Security - Address in Defence White Paper

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator for Tasmania Christine Milne, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 25 February 2013, 38 retired generals and admirals from the United States of America (US), and prominent national security experts, presented a letter calling on US policymakers to recognise the security effects of climate change and the undeniable consequences and costs of inaction in addressing climate change for vulnerable nations,

(ii) the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in 2007 called on the 2009 Defence White Paper to examine the full implication of climate change for the Australian Defence Force, and

(iii) the brief acknowledgement in the 2009 Defence White Paper that climate change has the potential to be a destabilising global force erroneously concludes that the strategic consequences of climate change will not be felt before 2030; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) recognise the undeniable security implications of climate change, the costs and consequences of inaction, and

(ii) ensure that the Defence White Paper, due to be released in May 2013, addresses the fact that climate change is shaping the contemporary security climate, is a driver of conflict and should guide procurement and deployment in Australia's national security.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Lin Thorp was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.