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

Division Stephen Parry Supporters vote Division outcome

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

No 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

27th Feb 2007, 4:04 PM – Senate Motions - Nuclear Proliferation - Block US-India deal at NSG meeting and rule out supply of uranium to India

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:

(i) growing international concern about nuclear proliferation and recent speculation about a possible United States of America (US) or Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities,

(ii) Australia is a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which makes its decisions by consensus,

(iii) the US-India nuclear cooperation deal would breach the guidelines of the NSG that restricts trade with non-nuclear-weapon states that do not accept full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards,

(iv) exemptions from NSG guidelines would erode the credibility of the NSG’s effort to restrict nuclear trade to those states that meet global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament standards, and

(v) the next NSG meeting is in April 2007 and the US is expected to seek agreement to allow the US-India nuclear cooperation deal to proceed; and

(b) calls on the Government to preserve the integrity of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by blocking the US-India deal at the NSG meeting in April 2007 and ruling out the supply of uranium to India.

No No Not passed by a large majority

27th Feb 2007, 3:43 PM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Weapons — No exporting to non—NPT parties, support support non—proliferation

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Australian Democrats Senator Lyn Allison, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate:

(a) notes the growing international concern regarding nuclear weapons proliferation, as shown by the:

(i) decision by the advisory board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, on 17 January 2007, to move the hands of the ‘Doomsday Clock’ from 7 minutes to midnight to 5 minutes to midnight,

(ii) statement by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Peace prize winner Mohammed El Baradei, on 9 January 2007, stressing that ‘In addition to non-proliferation, it is also important to make progress on the second leg of the NPT – namely, the commitment by the nuclear weapon States to proceed in good faith towards complete nuclear disarmament’,

(iii) statements published in the Wall Street Journal of 4 January 2007, by Henry A Kissinger, George P Schultz, William J Perry and Senator Sam Nunn, emphasising the urgency of agreed practical steps to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, and

(iv) statements by Kofi Annan, on 28 November 2006, and the Rome Summit of Peace Nobels, on 19 November 2006, emphasising the urgency of eliminating nuclear weapons; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) review all existing uranium contracts with a view to ensuring that atoms of Australian uranium will never facilitate, in any way, nuclear weapons in any country,

(ii) give an assurance that uranium will never be exported to any state that is not an Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory,

(iii) make representations to the United States of America (US), urging it to place greater importance not only on non-proliferation and counter-proliferation efforts, but also on its Article VI NPT obligation to achieve the total elimination of its nuclear arsenal,

(iv) press the US and China, in particular, to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and

(v) continue its co-sponsorship of the resolution ‘Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons’, and support all other nuclear disarmament initiatives on the floor of the First Committee and General Assembly including the New Agenda resolution ‘Reducing Nuclear Danger’ and the annual Non-Aligned Movement resolution.

No No Not passed by a small majority

10th Oct 2006, 3:42 PM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Nonproliferation — Against Australia becoming a nuclear fuel supply centre and against sale of uranium to India

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) condemns North Korea’s nuclear weapons test;

(b) notes:

(i) the increasing threat of nuclear conflict globally,

(ii) that International Atomic Energy Agency statistics reveal that there have been 300 seizures of smuggled radioactive material capable of making a ‘dirty’ bomb since 2002 and that the rate of seizures has doubled since this time,

(iii) the call from Al Qaeda’s chief in Iraq for nuclear scientists and explosives experts to join his Jihad against the West, and his comment that American bases in Iraq are good places to test unconventional weapons, and

(iv) that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has undermined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by expressing a willingness to consider the sale of uranium to India, which is not a signatory to the Treaty and which, together with Pakistan, staged the last nuclear break-out in 1998; and

(c) calls on the Government to:

(i) dismantle the Prime Minister’s Taskforce conducting the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review,

(ii) reject any proposition by the United States of America about Australia becoming a nuclear fuel supply centre under President George W Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and

(iii) abandon its support for the sale of uranium to India.

No No Not passed by a large majority

14th Sep 2006, 9:59 AM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Tests at Maralinga — For non—proliferation and against export to non—Treaty states

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) 27 September 2006 is the 50th anniversary of the first of the nuclear tests at Maralinga,

(ii) the nuclear tests resulted in fallout over most of Australia, and especially contaminated great tracts of traditional land, transforming an independent and physically-wide ranging people into a semi-static and dependent group, the damage being radiological, psycho-social and cultural,

(iii) the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia concluded that, at Maralinga, ‘attempts to ensure Aboriginal safety’ during the tests ‘demonstrate ignorance, incompetence and cynicism on the part of those responsible for that safety’,

(iv) the test site remains radioactive and that there are unresolved issues about compensation for the traditional owners,

(v) approximately 16 000 servicemen exposed to radiation during the tests never received recognition of hazardous service and survivors receive limited ongoing support, and the high mortality and illness rates of these men have not yet been adequately acknowledged or explained,

(vi) the Government breached its own standards for the disposal of long-lived radioactive waste disposal by burying plutonium-contaminated debris in shallow, unlined trenches,

(vii) the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency described the ‘clean-up’ as marred by a ‘host of indiscretions, short-cuts and cover-ups’, and

(viii) the radioactive waste legacy will inevitably be a cost unfairly borne by future Australians; and

(b) calls on the Government to recommit to international nuclear non-proliferation, including ruling out the export of Australian uranium to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ruling out the development of uranium enrichment plants in Australia.

No No Not passed by a small majority

10th May 2006, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Uranium Exports - Oppose export to China

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 Chinese Ambassador to Australia, Madam Fu Ying, stated in December 2005 that China does not have sufficient uranium for both its weapons and civilian energy programs,

(ii) Australian yellowcake needs to go to conversion, enrichment and processing facilities before being allocated to declared civilian nuclear power stations,

(iii) most of the conversion, enrichment and processing facilities are not declared facilities and are therefore not covered by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and

(iv) those facilities that are declared are only declared at the discretion of the Chinese Government, and therefore are voluntary and can at any time be removed from IAEA safeguards;

(b) recognises therefore that by exporting uranium to China, Australia will be supporting, either directly or indirectly, the Chinese nuclear weapons program in contravention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and

(c) opposes and condemns the export of uranium to China.

No No Not passed by a large majority

28th Mar 2006, 3:58 PM – Senate Motions - Uranium Exports - No export to India

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) Prime Minister John Howard has recently equivocated on the export of uranium to India, in spite of the fact that India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and

(ii) India has a well-developed, active and secret program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent other countries’ technology export control efforts, according to a recently-released report by the United States of America (US) based Institute of Science and International Security; and(You can see the report here (198 KB).)

(b) calls on the Australian Government to rule out the export of uranium to India and to use its membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to block the proposed US-India nuclear technology agreement.

References

No No Not passed by a large majority

28th Feb 2006, 3:46 PM – Senate Motions - Nuclear Non—Proliferation Treaty - Against uranium export to non-Treaty states

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of 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,

(ii) the President of the United States of America (US), George W Bush, will visit India in the week beginning 26 February 2006 to advance sales of US nuclear power technology to India, and

(iii) the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) intends to visit India where the Australian Government hopes to facilitate uranium export contracts; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) cease pressuring the state and territory governments to permit the expansion of uranium mining, and

(ii) cease activities that deliberately undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

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 14 140 140
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 3 3 6
Total: 143 146

*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 = 143 / 146 = 98%.

And then