How Rod Kemp voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation and regulations that protect and conserve Australia's marine ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef

Division Rod Kemp Supporters vote Division outcome

21st Jun 2007, 8:40 PM – Senate Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 - In Committee - extend boundaries of Park to EEZ

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Senator Jan McLucas, which means that it was rejected.

Ms McLucas explained that the purpose of her amendment was "to extend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region to the boundaries of the exclusive economic zone" (EEZ).(Read Ms McLucas's full explanation and the associated debate here, beginning from 8:14 pm. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced in response to recommendations made in the Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders (the Uhrig Review).(Read more about the background to the bill in its bills digest. ) The bill amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to:

  • implement changes to the governance arrangements of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority;
  • provide for a periodic outlook report and the development of zoning plans for the Marine Park; and
  • replace the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee with a non-statutory advisory board.(A summary of the bill and its explanatory memorandum can be found here.)
absent Yes Not passed by a small majority

30th Mar 2006, 4:18 PM – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - Add to endangered list

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which means it was unsuccessful. The motion was:

That the Senate- (a) notes that the Federal Government’s Climate Change: Risk and Vulnerability [1.8 MB] report states that:

(i) both the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics are very sensitive to changes in temperature and that an increase of as little as 2°C could have devastating effects,

(ii) climate model projections suggest that within 40 years water temperatures could be above the survival limit of corals, and

(iii) the value and uniqueness of World Heritage listed areas are already established and these should be given prominence in adaptation research and planning;

(b) further notes that:

(i) the World Heritage Committee considers that the Great Barrier Reef is one of many World Heritage sites that will become increasingly affected by climate change-other prime examples include the Kilimanjaro National Park, biosphere reserves such as the Cape Floral Region in South Africa and cultural sites such as the Venice Lagoon which is threatened by the rise in sea level, and

(ii) at the World Heritage Committee meeting of climate change experts at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Headquarters in Paris on 16 and 17 March 2006, the Australian Government joined with the United States of America in arguing against the Great Barrier Reef being listed as World Heritage in Danger because of climate change; and

(c) calls on the Government to support inclusion of the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage in Danger list because of climate change.

absent Yes Not passed by a small 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 Rod Kemp 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.