How Ben Small voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should protect threatened forest and bushland habitats from logging.

Division Ben Small Supporters vote Division outcome

15th Mar 2021, 5:03 PM – Senate Motions - Tasmania: Environmental Conservation - End privatisation

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) national parks are public land held in trust on behalf of all Australians to protect their natural and cultural heritage values,

(ii) the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is managed by the Australian and Tasmanian governments on behalf of the world's people and protected for its incredible natural and cultural heritage values,

(iii) since 2014, the Tasmanian Government has run a secretive process to facilitate developments in national parks and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, overseen by the Coordinator-General,

(iv) there are around 30 developments that are now in the pipeline as a result of this opaque and corrupt process,

(v) this process has been developer driven and allowed for some completely inappropriate developments on public land, and

(vi) a potential development at Halls Island in the Walls of Jerusalem National Park and Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area has widespread community opposition because of the destruction of wilderness that will occur if it proceeds;

(b) condemns the privatisation of Tasmania's public spaces, including in national parks and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; and

(c) calls on the Tasmanian Government to stop the sell-out of Tasmania's national parks and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

15th Feb 2021, 5:41 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry - Samuel Review

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) ...

(b) calls on the Morrison Government to urgently overhaul Australia's national environmental laws to adopt the recommendations from the Samuel Review to reform destructive logging laws, enact stronger laws that protect our environment and wildlife and create an independent watchdog to hold those who trash our environment to account.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

15th Feb 2021, 5:36 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry - Environmental protection

Show detail

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

Note that while Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation) appeared to vote "yes" on this division, that was done by mistake and he subsequently said that he made a mistake and that "I want it noted that I oppose part (a) of the motion."

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) native forest logging in Tasmania continues to destroy nature, threatened species, and our climate,

(ii) last year the Bob Brown Foundation (BBF) lodged a challenge against the Commonwealth Government, Tasmanian government, and Sustainable Timber Tasmania in the Federal Court arguing Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) contradicted the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) by not protecting endangered species such as the Swift Parrot, and was therefore invalid,

(iii) on 3 February 2021 the Federal Court ruled against BBF, finding Tasmania's RFA is valid, and

(iv) this ruling vindicates the finding by the independent review of the EPBC Act (the Samuel Review) that 'the EPBC Act is ineffective ... does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation ... [and] is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges'; ...

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

2nd Feb 2021, 4:17 PM – Senate Motions - White Rock Quarry - Halt expansion

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd proposes to expand the White Rock Quarry in the Adelaide Hills,

(ii) the expansion of the quarry into existing areas of native vegetation will threaten 17 species of local fauna and their habitat including koalas, the southern brown bandicoot and the short beaked echidna,

(iii) land clearing is the greatest threat to koala survival and millions of native animals, including koalas, are killed each year in Australia due to land clearing, and

(iv) members of the local community oppose the expansion of the White Rock Quarry; and

(b) calls on the state Government of South Australia to halt the expansion of the Hanson White Rock Quarry.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

30th Nov 2020, 4:40 PM – Senate Motions - Environment - Protect Koala Habitat

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—

(a) notes that the biggest threat to endangered koala populations is habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation; and

(b) calls on the Government to implement a moratorium on the clearing and destruction of koala habitat.

No Yes Not passed by a small 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 5 0 50
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 50

*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 / 50 = 0.0%.

And then