How Philip Ruddock voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases consumer protections by, for example, encouraging competition

Division Philip Ruddock Supporters vote

16th Nov 2010, 8:12 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail - Merit review and procedural fairness

Yes No

16th Nov 2010, 6:29 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail — Disallowance of instruments and competition

Yes No

16th Nov 2010, 5:33 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail — Disallowable instruments to limit Telstra

Yes No

15th Nov 2010, 8:05 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Second Reading — Read a second time

No Yes (strong)

22nd Oct 2009, 2:01 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 — Third Reading - Read a third time

No Yes (strong)

22nd Oct 2009, 1:48 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 — Second Reading - Read a second time

No Yes (strong)

5th Jun 2008, 5:51 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 — Third Reading - Read a third time

No Yes (strong)

5th Jun 2008, 5:49 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — Read a second time

No Yes (strong)

5th Jun 2008, 5:46 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 — Third Reading - Read a third time

No Yes (strong)

5th Jun 2008, 5:43 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — Read a second time

No Yes (strong)

5th Jun 2008, 5:36 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — Keep motion to read a second time unchanged

No Yes

How "consistently 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 7 0 350
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: 0 390

*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 / 390 = 0.0%.

And then