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

Division Scott Buchholz Supporters vote Division outcome

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

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

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull, which means that they were unsuccessful. Mr Turnbull explained that these amendments related to merit review and procedural fairness.(Read Mr Turnbull's full explanation and the associated debate here, after 6:35 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Yes No Not passed by a small majority

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

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull, which means that they were unsuccessful.

Mr Turnbull explained that the amendments related to the disallowance of instruments and competition. He said that their purpose was to: (1) replace ‘in writing’ with the words ‘in a legislative instrument’ so that any ministerial direction to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission regarding the criteria for acceptance of a functional separation would be a disallowable instrument and therefore subject to the scrutiny of parliament; and (2) ensure that the normal operation of the Competition and Consumer Act, formerly the Trade Practices Act, would apply to the deal involving Telstra and NBN Co.(Read Mr Turnbull's full explanation and the associated debate here, after 5:39 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Yes No Not passed by a small majority

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

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull, which means that they were unsuccessful.

Mr Turnbull explained that "[t]hese amendments serve to remove the ‘gun at the head’ provisions of the [bill] which provide ministerial discretion to bar Telstra from bidding for next-generation 4G wireless spectrum, via a disallowable instrument". He described this as "profoundly offensive" because they "force a private company which was sold to the public as an integrated telecommunications company by the Commonwealth to take, under extreme pressure, certain actions to restructure its own business".(Read Mr Turnbull's full explanation here, after 4:52 pm. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

Yes No Not passed by a small majority

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

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agree with the main idea of the bill and that they can now discuss it in more detail.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the lapse of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 and relates to the regulation of consumer protection, competition and licensing in telecommunications markets. While substantially the same as the earlier bill, it includes some additional provisions.

According to the bills digest, significant changes made by this bill include:

  • improving the conditions for competition in telecommunications markets by requiring Telstra to be structurally or functionally separated
  • making the telecommunications access regime less susceptible to deliberate delay and obstruction
  • removing a technical impediment to the operation of the anti-competitive conduct regime applying to telecommunications markets
  • clarifying the universal service obligation (USO) and customer service guarantee (CSG) to make it more enforceable
  • extending the obligation to provide priority assistance to those with life threatening conditions to service providers other than Telstra, and
  • enabling breaches of civil penalty provisions - including some concerning the USO and the CSG - to be dealt with by issuing infringement notices.(More information about the bill is available in its bills digest.)

With these measures, the bill seeks to address the issues that result from the monopoly caused by Telstra's vertically and horizontally integrated telecommunications network.

No Yes (strong) 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 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 5 0 50
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 100

*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 / 100 = 0.0%.

And then