How Peter Whish-Wilson voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should support the exportation of uranium from Australia

Division Peter Whish-Wilson Supporters vote Division outcome

12th Feb 2015, 12:15 PM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Energy

Show detail

Senator Wright proposed a motion that the senate declare it is against the establishment of nuclear power plants in Australia and that the production of uranium for fuel presents a dangerous risk.

The Senator claims that her chosen wording for the motion is taken directly from the Australian Labor Parties National Policy Platform, from which chapter 3, policy 230 reads:

Labor recognizes that the production of uranium and its use in the nuclear fuel cycle present unique and unprecedented hazards and risks, including:

  • threats to human health and the local environment in the mining and milling of uranium, which demand the enforcement of very strict safety procedures

  • the generation of products that are usable as the raw materials for nuclear weapons manufacture, which demands the enforcement of effective controls against diversion

  • the generation of highly toxic radioactive waste by-products that demand permanently safe disposal methods.

Motion:

That the Senate—

(a) opposes the establishment of nuclear power plants in Australia, based on the best available expert advice;

(b) recognizes that the production of uranium and its use in the nuclear fuel cycle presents unique and unprecedented hazards and risks, including:

(i) threats to human health and the local environment in the mining and milling of uranium,

(ii) the generation of products that are usable as the raw materials for nuclear weapons manufacture, and

(iii) the generation of highly toxic radioactive waste by-products; and

(c) rejects any efforts to move toward establishing nuclear power plants in South Australia.

Yes No Not passed by a modest majority

13th Mar 2013, 3:58 PM – Senate Motions — Uranium Exports - Review all bilateral uranium supply arrangements

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 that:

(i) Australian uranium is confirmed to have been present in each of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power station on 11 March 2011,

(ii) the disaster is ongoing 2 years later, with continuing radiation leaks, and that 160 000 people remain displaced from their homes with inadequate compensation to resettle,

(iii) decommissioning is expected to take over 40 years at a cost of A$100 billion, and

(iv) approximately 2 000 samples of food and game tested for radiation between April 2012 and January 2013 exceeded the limit for human consumption of radioactive isotopes; and

(b) calls on the Australian Government to undertake an immediate review of all bilateral uranium supply arrangements to assess the risk of future disasters at nuclear power stations in countries to which Australia supplies uranium.

Yes No 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 2 0 20
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 20

*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 / 20 = 0.0%.

And then