How James Paterson voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should restrict foreign ownership within Australia, particularly where foreign ownership would be against the national interest

Division James Paterson Supporters vote Division outcome

13th Nov 2019, 4:53 PM – Senate Motions - Great Australian Bight - Foreign company

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate notes that:

(a) Norwegian company Equinor has an application before the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight;

(b) NOPSEMA has rejected Equinor's environment plan stating that Equinor must provide it with further information about matters relating to consultation, source control, oil spill risk, and matters protected under Part 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

(c) modelling commissioned by The Australia Institute shows Equinor will pay the Norwegian Government more than it will pay in Australian Government taxes, and up to 27 times more than it will pay to the South Australian Government;

(d) if Equinor's application is ultimately approved by NOPSEMA, a foreign-owned company will therefore take the vast majority of financial gains while exploiting and putting at risk our precious marine and coastal environment, and tens of thousands of tourism and fishing industry jobs; and

(e) the ecological and environmental significance of the Great Australian Bight is, in fact, priceless.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

4th May 2016, 4:06 PM – Senate Motions - Sugar Industry - Act on Committee recommendations

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Independent Senator Glenn Lazarus, which called on the Government to act on the recommendations made by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the Australian sugar industry.

What did the motion say?

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Australian sugarcane industry is one of Australia's largest and most important rural industries with sugarcane being Queensland's largest agricultural crop,

(ii) around 85 per cent of the raw sugar produced in Queensland is exported and generates up to $2 billion in export earnings,

(iii) the majority of mills in Australia are foreign owned and Australian grower groups are concerned about the monopoly powers of mills to misuse their market power against Australian sugarcane growers, particularly in response to changes to the industry from 2017 which may see large foreign owned milling companies taking control of the Australian sugar marketing sector, and

(iv) the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report Current and future arrangements for the marketing of Australian sugar, tabled in June 2015, recommended the development and implementation of a mandatory sugar industry code of conduct;

(b) acknowledges that Australian sugarcane growers are urgently seeking implementation of a national industry code of conduct to protect them from large resourced companies exercising monopoly powers to dictate the commercial relationship between millers and growers, the installation of a commercial arbitration facility to support them to resolve issues with mills, and the ability to select a sugar marketing organisation of their choice; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to support Australian sugarcane growers, to act on the recommendation in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report, and to work with industry as a matter of urgency to:

(i) develop and implement a code of conduct,

(ii) establish a national commercial arbitration service,

(iii) provide Australian canegrowers with the flexibility to select sugar marketing organisations of their choice, and

(iv) establish a national support service for Australian canegrowers.

No Yes 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