Photo of Julian Hill

Julian Hill voted very strongly for creating a federal Anti-Corruption Commission

How Julian Hill voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should create a national integrity commission similar to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to detect, investigate and prevent corruption across all Commonwealth departments and agencies

Division Julian Hill Supporters vote Division outcome

2nd Dec 2019, 12:32 PM – Representatives Private Members' Business - Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption - For bi-partisan support

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Clark MP Andrew Wilkie (Independent), which means it failed.

Motion text

(1)the House notes that:

(a)over a long time now the behaviour of both major parties has made it abundantly clear that Parliament cannot deal with matters of ministerial integrity, and Australia urgently needs a Federal Integrity Commission;

(b)Australia needs a strong and independent integrity commission that can launch its own inquiries, hold public hearings, make public findings and examine federal politicians and their staff;

(c)the scope of this integrity commission must extend beyond criminal offences to a range of corrupt and unethical behaviour including donation-fuelled favouritism, cronyism and the rorting of parliamentary entitlements;

(d)the Federal Government's proposed National Integrity Commission is half-baked and would be the weakest watchdog in the country with its investigations being held behind closed doors and the results kept secret; and

(e)the Australian people's trust in members of parliament is at an all-time low and we need to rebuild the culture of integrity in this Parliament because it is essential that the community has faith in the institutions of government;

(2)the House further notes that, in September this year, the Senate passed a bill to establish a federal anti-corruption commission; and

(3)the Members for Clark, Kennedy, Mayo and Melbourne therefore call on the major parties for bipartisan support for a strong, well-funded, wide ranging and independent national integrity commission without delay.

 Yes Yes Not 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 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 10 10

*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 = 10 / 10 = 100%.

And then