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

Division Celia Hammond Supporters vote Division outcome

4th Aug 2021, 12:07 PM – Representatives Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response - Better Advice) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Disagree with amendments

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" - parliamentary jargon to agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

Amendment text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House note the Government has:

(1) failed to effectively deliver professional standards reform in the financial advice sector;

(2) been too slow to implement the findings of the Hayne Royal Commission;

(3) established and then shut down the failed Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority;

(4) failed to adequately protect consumers; and

(5) caused uncertainty and unnecessary costs for thousands of financial advisers across Australia".

Yes No Passed by a small majority

27th Nov 2019, 12:16 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Director ID numbers

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments, which means they failed. According to Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor), who introduced the amendments, they reflect a former version of the bill, which the Liberal and National Parties supported earlier this year but have now been removed. He said that:

We believe that [these amendments are] worthy of support of every individual member of this place because, without director identification numbers, the dodgy directors will continue to rip off unwitting contractors, unwitting customers. They'll continue to rip people off to the tune of billions of dollars every year.

What does this bill do?

The bill was introduced in order to:

  • introduce new phoenixing offences
  • prohibit directors from improperly backdating resignations or ceasing to be director when this could leave a company with no director and
  • allow the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) to collect estimates of anticipated goods and services tax (GST) liabilities and make company directors personally liable for their company's GST liabilities in certain circumstances.

The ATO defines Illegal phoenix activity as when:

a new company is created to continue the business of a company that has been deliberately liquidated to avoid paying its debts, including taxes, creditors and employee entitlements.

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

15th Oct 2019, 6:36 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Restrict fintech sandbox exemption

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor), which means it failed.

What do these amendments do?

MP Jones explained that:

Labor's amendments apply to schedule 1 of the bill. Our amendments introduce a requirement for companies accessing the fintech sandbox exemption created under this bill to submit a notice outlining the details of their service or product and giving a justification as to why such an exemption is likely to benefit the public. Under Labor's amendments, ASIC will have the power to remove a company's access to a fintech sandbox exemption or, probably more correctly, not consider a company's access to the exemption provided by this bill if they decide that they're not satisfied that the new service or product is innovative or likely to provide a benefit to the public. This is necessary and a relevant test for the bill.

The substantive bill authorises ASIC to provide wide-ranging exemptions to financial services laws—laws that have been established by this place for the express purpose of protecting customers or consumers. Such exemptions should only be granted if such an exemption is likely to provide significant benefit to the public. The regulator is being asked to make a judgement either that there is minimal risk and/or that the countervailing public interest is so great that it warrants waiving the provisions that apply to every other licensee in the market.

Read more about the bill and this exemption on the bills digest.

No Yes Not passed by a small majority

How "voted 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 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 3 0 30
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 30

*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 / 30 = 0.0%.

And then