How Patrick Dodson voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase water allocations from the Murray-Darling Basin for farmers and other users

Division Patrick Dodson Supporters vote Division outcome

25th Feb 2020, 4:15 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Protect water

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) the New South Wales (NSW) Government has lifted its moratorium on floodplain harvesting and water pumping,

(ii) water from recent rains has not yet made it down the river and there are still towns without drinking water, dry catchments and storages and fish species facing collapse,

(iii) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority says it is too early to say whether all storages will receive water, or if flows will be enough to connect the rivers,

(iv) the Queensland Government has also allowed floodplain harvesting which was criticised by the NSW Government,

(v) upstream Basin states making decisions that only benefit them puts the entire river system in jeopardy, and

(vi) the Murray-Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse, and family farms, river communities and the environment need national leadership; and

(b) calls on the NSW Government to reinstate the moratorium on floodplain harvesting and water pumping.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

11th Sep 2019, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Moratorium

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of clause (b) of a motion introduced by SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) ...

(b) calls on the Federal Government to impose a moratorium on non-water users buying up water while the Murray-Darling Basin remains in crisis.

Yes No Passed by a small majority

11th Sep 2019, 3:58 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Crisis

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis,

(ii) the Murray-Darling Basin is being exploited by water barons and big corporate irrigators who are pushing up the price of water and squeezing family farms out of the water market, and

(iii) urgent and immediate action is required to prevent more mass native-fish deaths, and more devastation for family farms, river communities and the environment; and

(b) ...

No No Not passed by a modest majority

3rd Apr 2019, 1:03 PM – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin - Repeal 1,500 GL limit

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by SA Senator Rex Patrick (Centre Alliance), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own, but they are politically influential since they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That—

(1) The Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the Murray Darling Royal Commission recommended that future water recovery for the environment, including the 450 GL, should be purchased through buyback, which requires repeal of the 1,500 GL cap on buybacks in section 85C of the Water Act 2007, and

(ii) the future environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin relies on additional water recovery; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to support the urgent repeal of the 1,500 GL limit on Commonwealth water purchases.

(2) This resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

Yes No Passed by a small majority

14th Feb 2019 – Senate Motions - Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission - Reform needed

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of paragraph (a)(i) to (iv) of a motion introduced by South Australian Senator Tim Storer (Independent), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't have any legal force on their own but are politically influential as they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival, the latest evidence of this being the fish-kills at Menindee Lakes,

(ii) the management of the Murray-Darling Basin requires urgent reform,

(iii) the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission delivered its findings on 29 January 2019, including recommendations to:

(A) improve transparency by "requiring real-time data sharing and publication on water extractions",

(B) abolish the water buybacks cap of 1,500 gigalitres, and

(C) undertake further research into return flows so that we know the effects of irrigation efficiency projects, and

(iv) the Productivity Commission delivered its findings to the Federal Government on 19 December 2018, pointing out that:

(A) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's twin roles as overseer of the Plan and its regulator are "conflicted and the conflicts will intensity in the next five years", and

(B) structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into a Basin Plan Regulator and Murray-Darling Basin Agency is required to ensure effective implementation of the Plan; and

...

Yes No Passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2018, 9:17 PM – Senate Water Amendment Bill 2018 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill a third time. Since it had already passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

What does this bill do?

The bill was introduced to:

enable the Commonwealth Water Minister to direct the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to prepare an amendment to the Basin Plan 2012 (the Basin Plan) that is the same in effect as a Basin Plan amendment that has previously been disallowed, or taken to have been disallowed, by either House of Parliament.

Read more in the bills digest.

absent Yes Passed by a modest majority

25th Jun 2018, 8:36 PM – Senate Water Amendment Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time, which means they can now discuss it in greater detail.

What does this bill do?

The bill was introduced to:

enable the Commonwealth Water Minister to direct the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to prepare an amendment to the Basin Plan 2012 (the Basin Plan) that is the same in effect as a Basin Plan amendment that has previously been disallowed, or taken to have been disallowed, by either House of Parliament.

Read more in the bills digest.

absent Yes Passed by a modest majority

14th Feb 2018, 7:14 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1) - Disallow

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to disallow the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1), which means that instrument will no longer have legal force.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA) explained that:

... we have a regulation before us in this place [that is, the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1)] that suggests the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be amended to take more water out of the river, to take more water off the environment and to hand it to big corporate irrigators upstream. It is rewarding bad behaviour. That is why today's vote is very, very important. Amongst this cesspool of water theft, corruption and mismanagement, why on earth would this parliament sign off on giving more water to the people who have behaved badly and less water to the river that desperately needs it?

Yes No Passed by a small majority

How "voted moderately 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 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 2 2 4
Total: 22 64

*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 = 22 / 64 = 34%.

And then