How Judith Adams voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase fishing restrictions so that fish populations are sustainable

Division Judith Adams Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Mar 2012, 4:32 PM – Senate Motions — Western Australia Export Fishing Licences - Refuse export licence until observer program established

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion moved by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) there are less than 12,500 Australian sea lions left in Australian waters and that the 2,000 left in Western Australian waters are extremely vulnerable,

(ii) one of the greatest threats to the survival of Australian sea lions is gillnets,

(iii) the Western Australian Department of Fisheries has failed to meet the government's conditions to put an observer program in place on boats within its gillnet fisheries to establish how many sea lions and dolphins are killed each year,

(iv) without observers, the number of Australian sea lions and dolphins dying in gillnets is likely to be grossly under reported, given that the example from the South Australian shark gillnet fishery demonstrated that few deaths were reported until observer-based studies identified up to 374 sea lions and 56 dolphins were dying every 18 months,

(v) the South Australian shark gillnet fishery now has compulsory video or observer coverage on every vessel, as well as new rules to protect Australian sea lions, and

(vi) the Western Australian Department of Fisheries is currently re-applying to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for export approval for Western Australia's Temperate Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fisheries;

(b) is concerned that, before any re-approval of export licensing, the Western Australian Department of Fisheries should identify its impact on sea lions and safeguard vulnerable and protected marine life from the fishery's impacts; and

(c) calls on the government to refuse the grant of the export licence for this fishery until an observer program is put in place and designated buffer zones are created around sea lion breeding colonies.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

19th Jun 2006, 3:43 PM – Senate Motions - Sea Bottom Trawl Fishing - Address destructive impact

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) recognises that unregulated high seas bottom trawling is inconsistent with international law as recognised in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(b) notes the Australian Government’s initiatives in developing long-term governance arrangements to address destructive fishing practices such as illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing and high sea bottom trawling;

(c) calls on the Government to report on its actions to inform a review of progress and future recommendations to address the destructive impacts on deep sea ecosystems, as requested by the UN, and which was to have been provided by 1 May 2006;

(d) notes that:

(i) these governance measures will take time to develop and implement and the need, therefore, for interim short-term measures, such as a global moratorium on high seas bottom trawling, and

(ii) the UN General Assembly will consider a proposal for a global moratorium on high seas bottom trawling in October or November 2006; and

(e) calls on the Government to support interim measures to address the destructive impacts of bottom trawling on deep sea ecosystems while long-term governance measures are put in place.

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

How "voted 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* 1 1 2
Total: 1 12

*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 = 1 / 12 = 8.3%.

And then