How Chris Ellison 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 Chris Ellison Supporters vote Division outcome

27th Aug 2008, 5:01 PM – Senate Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 - Referral to Committee

Show detail

The motion failed to get a majority and so was rejected. This is because an equal number of senators voted 'aye' and 'no'. It was introduced by Family First Senator Steve Fielding.

The motion was: "That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 be referred to the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report by 10 November 2008."

Senator Fielding explained that the reason for his motion was the "concern about the changes in the definitions and direction of the management of the park and about the definition of the precautionary principle, which basically could end up stopping any recreational fishing in the marine park".(Read his full explanation here.)

References

Yes No Not passed

27th Aug 2008, 4:08 PM – Senate Motions - Gunns Pulp Mill - Provide the report on potential marine impact

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion put by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

"That there be laid on the table, no later than 4 pm on 28 August 2008, the report prepared for the Federal Government by Dr Michael Herzfeld, a Coastal Environmental Modeller with the Marine and Atmospheric Research section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in conjunction with the Gunns Pulp Mill Independent Expert Group on the potential marine impact of effluent from the Gunns pulp mill."

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

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.)
No 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.

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 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 40

*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 / 40 = 0.0%.

And then