How Rod Kemp voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should make laws and regulations that protect and conserve the health of the Great Barrier Reef for future generations

Division Rod Kemp Supporters vote Division outcome

24th Jun 2008, 3:48 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Act on conference conclusions

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, so it was unsuccessful. It was introduced by Australian Democrats Senator Lyn Allison (Vic).

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that on 11 June and 12 June 2008 citizens and scientists came together in Canberra for the 2008 Manning Clark House Conference ‘Imagining the Real Life on a Greenhouse Earth’ [PDF, 1.2MB], in honour of former federal Minister, the Honourable Dr Barry Jones, AO, and concluded that:

(i) global warming is accelerating,

(ii) the Arctic summer sea ice is expected to melt entirely within the next 5 years, decades earlier than predicted in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007),

(iii) scientists judge the risks to humanity of dangerous global warming to be high,

(iv) the loss of the Great Barrier Reef now seems likely,

(v) extreme weather events, such as storm surges adding to rising sea levels and threatening coastal cities, will become more frequent,

(vi) there is a real danger that we have reached or will soon reach critical tipping points and the future will be taken out of our hands – the melting Arctic sea ice could be the first such tipping point,

(vii) beyond 2ºC of warming seems inevitable, unless greenhouse gas reduction targets are tightened, and we risk huge human and societal costs, and perhaps even the effective end of industrial civilisation,

(viii) we need to cease our assault on our own life support system and that of millions of species, and that global warming is only one of many symptoms of that assault,

(ix) peak oil, global warming and long-term sustainability pressures all require that we reduce energy needs and switch to renewable energy sources and many credible studies show that Australia can quickly and cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions through dramatic improvements in energy efficiency and by increasing Australia’s investment in solar, wind and other renewable sources,

(x) the need for action is extremely urgent and the window of opportunity for avoiding severe impacts is rapidly closing, yet the obstacles to change are not technical or economic, they are political and social, and

(xi) democratic societies have responded successfully to dire and immediate threats, as was demonstrated in World War II and this is a last call for an effective response to global warming;

(b) thanks the delegates of this conference, including Professor Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins, Dr Geoff Davies, Dr Andrew Glikson and Mr Sebastian Clark for their efforts in drawing this warning to the Senate’s attention; and

(c) urges the Government to act on these conclusions.

No Yes Not passed by a large 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 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 10

*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 / 10 = 0.0%.

And then