How David Coleman voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should privatise government owned assets

Division David Coleman Supporters vote Division outcome

11th Oct 2016, 6:04 PM – Representatives National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and another - Consideration in Detail - Privatisation

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Labor MP Catherine King, which means they were unsuccessful.

What are these amendments all about?

MP King explained the reasons for the amendments:

These are very important amendments. They go to the heart of Labor's concerns with the National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016. This is a very serious debate we are having here in this chamber this evening. This is a debate about not only who will hold some of the most sensitive health information but the future possibilities of the private, for-profit sector in the health space ...

... The amendments I have moved very strongly say that we do not believe that we should have a for-profit company running this register. I want to make it very clear that we will be moving these amendments in the Senate as well. These are amendments that I believe the House should support because if we do not it is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to this government privatising our Medicare system.

Learn more about the bills

The two bills under discussion are the:

Together, they create a National Cancer Screening Register. Read more about them in the bills digest.

Motion text

(1) Clause 26, page 22 (line 16), omit "The Minister", substitute "(1) The Minister".

(2) Clause 26, page 22 (lines 16 and 17), omit "a person", substitute "a permitted entity".

(3) Clause 26, page 22 (line 20), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) In this section:

permitted entity means:

(a) a Department of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(b) a body (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(c) a person in the service or employment of a Department mentioned in paragraph (a) or a body mentioned in paragraph (b); or

(d) a person who holds or performs the duties of an office or position established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or

(e) an entity (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established for a charitable purpose.

(4) This section has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in the acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).

No No Not passed by a small majority

26th Aug 2014, 12:36 PM – Representatives Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 - Consideration of Senate Message - Delay consideration

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Parliamentary Secretary Alan Tudge. The motion was: "That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for a later hour this day."

The "message" referred to in the motion was the message from the Senate, in which the Senate insisted on the amendments it made previously. The House must decide whether to agree to these amendments and therefore pass the bill or reject the amendments, which means the bill will fail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must go through to become law here. )

Background to the bills

The Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 and the related Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 were introduced to create the Asset Recycling Fund ('ARF').

The ARF is the fund from which grants to states and territories will be sourced under the Asset Recycling Initiative ('ARI'), which was developed to assist states to privatise assets and to speed up the construction of transport infrastructure in capital cities.(Read the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's comments on the initiative on ABC's PM program here. ) Under the ARI, states and territories will be encouraged to sell assets, including transport infrastructure, and use the proceeds to fund new public infrastructure. By way of encouragement, the Commonwealth will provide a financial contribution of 15 per cent of the asset value of the sale that is used to fund the new infrastructure.(See the bills digest for more information. )

The Council of Australian Governments voted in favour of the ARI on 2 May 2014.(Read more about COAG's decision to agree with the ARI on ABC News here.)

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

26th Aug 2014 – Representatives Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 - Consideration of Senate Message - Delay consideration

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Parliamentary Secretary Alan Tudge. The motion was: "That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for a later hour this day."

The "message" referred to in the motion was the message from the Senate, in which the Senate insisted on the amendments it made previously. The House must decide whether to agree to these amendments and therefore pass the bill or reject the amendments, which means the bill will fail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must go through to become law here. )

Background to the bills

The Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 and the related Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 were introduced to create the Asset Recycling Fund ('ARF').

The ARF is the fund from which grants to states and territories will be sourced under the Asset Recycling Initiative ('ARI'), which was developed to assist states to privatise assets and to speed up the construction of transport infrastructure in capital cities.(Read the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's comments on the initiative on ABC's PM program here. ) Under the ARI, states and territories will be encouraged to sell assets, including transport infrastructure, and use the proceeds to fund new public infrastructure. By way of encouragement, the Commonwealth will provide a financial contribution of 15 per cent of the asset value of the sale that is used to fund the new infrastructure.(See the bills digest for more information. )

The Council of Australian Governments voted in favour of the ARI on 2 May 2014.(Read more about COAG's decision to agree with the ARI on ABC News here.)

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

24th Mar 2014, 6:35 PM – Representatives Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 — Consideration in Detail — Agree to the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the bill be agreed to, which ends the consideration and detail stage.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) That the House of Representatives can now decide on whether to read the bill a third time and therefore pass it in the House.

Background to the bill

In the 2013 election campaign, the Coalition said that it would be an infrastructure-focused government and committed to finding ways to encourage the private sector to become more involved in infrastructure financing. This bill reflects that commitment by amending the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 ('the Act') to allow partnerships and non-corporate Commonwealth entities, such as public private partnerships, to be funded. The bill also renames the Act to the National Land Transport Act 2014 and continues the Roads to Recovery Programme after 30 June 2014, when it is currently scheduled to end.(Read more about the bill in the bills digest.)

Yes Yes Passed by a small 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 4 40 40
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 40 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 = 40 / 40 = 100%.

And then