How Celia Hammond voted compared to someone who believes that the federal govenment should increase transparency in big business (that is, companies with an income equal or more than $100 million/year or, alternatively, $200 million/year) by making certain information public, including their total income and how much tax they paid

Division Celia Hammond Supporters vote Division outcome

10th Aug 2021, 5:14 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree and so pass bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the amendments be agreed to." This means that the bill is now passed in its current form in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and so it will now become law.

Isaacs MP Mark Dreyfus (Labor) explained why the Labor Party would not be supporting this motion, while the Government did not make any further contributions on the subject.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest, the bill includes two schedules. The first is not controversial. It will "allow meetings to be held virtually, to allow documents relating to meetings to be provided and signed electronically and for minutes to be kept electronically" (see the bills digest for more information).

Schedule 2 is very controversial, because it effectively waters down current continuous disclosure provisions, as well as misleading and deceptive conduct provisions, by making it harder to enforce civil penalties against people who allegedly breach these provisions.

According to the bills digest, Schedule 2 will:

  • permanently add a fault element to continuous disclosure civil penalty provisions, so that a person will only be eligible for a civil penalty where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence in failing to update the market with price sensitive information
  • impose the same fault standard for misleading and deceptive conduct that relates to alleged failure to provide an update with price sensitive information to the market
  • retain the existing standard for administrative penalties, so ASIC can continue to issue infringement notices without proving knowledge, recklessness or negligence. The existing standard is also retained for ASIC’s other non-pecuniary enforcement tools, such as requiring the disclosure of information to the market by obtaining a court order.
Yes No Passed by a small majority

17th Mar 2021, 5:42 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Continuous disclosure obligations

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Whitlam MP Stephen Jones (Labor), which means they failed. The amendments would have omitted Schedule 2, which contains the continuous disclosure obligation. MP Jones explained that:

Labor's amendment is simple: it cuts out schedule 2 of the bill. The schedule contains the government's plan to weaken continuous disclosure rules and damage corporate transparency…

We won't stand for the proposition that corporate transparency should be reduced. We are on the side of small investors and self-funded retirees. This is an insidious measure. The measures contained in schedule 2 would make it easier for companies and company directors to get away with withholding information or providing misleading information to shareholders.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 1 to 4), omit the table items, substitute:

1. The whole of this Act The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Schedule 2, page 25 (line 1) to page 38 (line 8), omit the Schedule.

Yes No Passed by a small majority

18th Jun 2020, 10:51 AM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 - Consideration of Senate Message - Disagree with Senate amendments

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with Senate amendments, which means that the bill cannot become law.

Yes No Passed by a small majority

17th Jun 2020, 4:53 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 - Consideration of Senate Message - Disagree with Senate amendments

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with Senate amendments, which means that the bill will go back to the Senate where our senators will decide whether they will insist on their amendments or not.

Yes No Passed by a small majority

How "voted very strongly 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 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 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 = 0 / 40 = 0.0%.

And then