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

Division Scott Ludlam Supporters vote Division outcome

22nd Jun 2017, 12:24 PM – Senate Motions - Aquaculture Industry - Okehampton Bay salmon farm

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Tas), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the damage caused to the Macquarie Harbour World Heritage Area, including the threat to the endangered Maugean Skate, as a result of the overstocking of salmon farms in the harbour,

(ii) the proceedings brought by Huon Aquaculture in the Federal Court and the Tasmanian Supreme Court against the Tasmanian Government for failing to properly regulate salmon farming by Tassal in Macquarie Harbour,

(iii) that the Commonwealth is investigating whether conditions imposed as part of the 2012 expansion of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour have been breached,

(iv) the decision of the Hodgman Government to grant permission to Tassal to establish an 800 000 fish salmon farm in Okehampton Bay on Tasmania's pristine east coast, and

(v) concerns from a wide cross-section of the community over the proposed Okehampton Bay salmon farm, including the concerns expressed by around 1 000 people who attended FloatMo in Hobart on 18 June 2017; and

(b) calls on the Hodgman Government to withdraw permission for a salmon farm in Okehampton Bay given the record of atrocious mismanagement and poor regulation of Tasmania's aquaculture industry.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

1st Dec 2014, 3:49 PM – Senate Motions - Super Trawlers - Permanent ban

Show detail

The majority disagreed that the Government should ban super trawlers from Australian waters. Super trawlers include ships like the Abel Tasman, which was known as the FV Margiris.

Background to motion

Back in November 2012, the Labor Government imposed a two-year ban on super trawlers in response to opposition to the Abel Tasman. This temporary ban has now ended and a further temporary ban will end in April 2015.

In November this year, two Tasmanians travelled to Canberra to deliver a petition signed by 30,000 people that asked the Federal Government to permanently ban super trawlers. This motion takes up this request for a permanent ban.

Read more about the debate surrounding super trawlers and their impact on the sustainability of fisheries in this Background Briefing.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity, Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012, has been released,

(ii) the report found a super trawler would negatively impact on protected species such as seals, dolphins and sea birds, and

(iii) the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Abbott) on 4 March 2014 that 'the super trawler is banned from Australian waters…it was banned with the support of members on this side of the House. It was banned; it will stay banned'; and

(b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation banning super trawlers from Australian waters.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

19th Sep 2012, 11:00 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the bill is now passed in the Senate and, since it has already passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, here. )

It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler FV Margiris into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler here. ) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above. ) Environment Minister Tony Burke position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",(Read more in the bills digest.) hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

18th Sep 2012, 2:06 PM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 — Second Reading — Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the bill.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, here. )

It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler FV Margiris into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler here. ) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above. ) Environment Minister Tony Burke position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",(Read more in the bills digest.) hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

11th Sep 2012, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions — Super Trawlers — Ban all super trawlers

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 calls on the Government to ban all super trawlers from Australian waters.(Super trawlers include fishing boats such as the FV Margiris, later called the Abel Tasman. )

This motion was made in response to the arrival the super trawler named FV Margiris into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler here. ) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above.) Due to these disparate views on the effect of super trawlers on fish populations, senators in favour of the policy "For developing and enforcing fishing restrictions" could have voted either way (i.e. either 'aye' or 'no'), depending on their views on this issue.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

16th Aug 2012, 12:05 PM – Senate Motions — Australian Small Pelagic Fishery - Reverse decision to lift quota

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, which means that it was unsuccessful. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes, in regard to the introduction of the factory ship FV Margiris to the Australian Small Pelagic Fishery, the range of significant and justifiable concerns, including but not limited to:

(i) the localised depletion of fish stocks,

(ii) mammalian by-catch, including seals and dolphins,

(iii) impacts on other industries, including tourism,

(iv) the assertion that this super trawler is only economically viable because it previously received European Union subsidies and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has lifted the fishery quotas,

(v) public access, transparency and scrutiny of any operational compliance data, and

(vi) the non-compliance of AFMA quota-setting processes with the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 (the Act); and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) reverse the decision to lift the quota for the Small Pelagic Fishery and examine the compliance of the AFMA-led process that led to this decision with the Act,

(ii) demonstrate that it has fully examined and mitigated the impacts of localised depletion that the FV Margiris will have and ensure that a bioregional approach has been taken in setting the harvest strategy under which this ship would operate, and

(iii) demonstrate that 100 per cent observer coverage will be achieved on-board to ensure compliance and minimal by-catch, given that the ship will operate 24 hours a day, and ensure all compliance data will be publically available.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

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.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted very strongly for" 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 7 70 70
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 70 70

*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 = 70 / 70 = 100%.

And then