How Katy Gallagher voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce restrictions to the amount and type of donations that political parties can receive in order to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption in government

Division Katy Gallagher Supporters vote Division outcome

13th Feb 2018, 3:53 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Mining and resources

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) in McCloy v New South Wales (2015), the High Court found that prohibiting political donations from a certain industry was permissible if the prohibition was proportionate to the risk of actual or perceived corruption,

(ii) a 2016 report from 350.org, found that fossil fuel companies would receive $7.7 billion in rebates and credits for the 2016-17 financial year, had made $3.7 million in political donations since the preceding election, and that this equated to $2,000 in rebates and credits for every $1 donated, and

(iii) in 2016-17, the Liberal, National and Labor parties received at least $477,111 from Woodside Energy, Santos, the Minerals Council of Australia, Whitehaven Coal and Adani Mining; and

(b) calls on the Government to prohibit political donations from mineral resources or mining industry business entities and their industry representative organisations.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

15th Aug 2017, 4:06 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Integrity and perceived corruption

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion on political donations that was introduced by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia's biggest ethanol producer, Manildra, has donated over $4.1 million to political parties since 1998-99 and was granted twenty meetings with the NSW Minister before a new law on the NSW Ethanol Mandate was passed,

(ii) the Productivity Commission has recommended that the policy designed to increase ethanol use by NSW motorists should be dropped, and that the mandate that 6 per cent of all petrol sold by major retailers in NSW must be ethanol may not achieve the claimed environmental benefits,

(iii) the most recent data from the federal Department of Environment and Energy shows that the E10 program has been a massive flop in its first five months and E10's share of all petrol sold in NSW during this period fell from 24.5 per cent in 2016 to 23.9 per cent this year, and

(iv) these developments add to the perception that corporate political donations have a corrupting influence on the political process; and

(b) calls on the Government to ban donations from industries which pose a particular threat to the integrity and perceived integrity of the electoral system.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

8th Nov 2016, 3:50 PM – Senate Motions - Political Donations - Family First

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) since 2013-14, former Senator Day has donated over $500 000 and forgiven a loan of $1.47 million to Family First,

(ii) an independent auditor's report in 2013 found Home Australia Group's liabilities exceeded its assets by nearly $31 million, and

(iii) over 200 customers have been left with unfinished homes; and

(b) calls on the Family First Party to return all money received from Mr Day and his companies so that money can be used to pay creditors.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

12th Oct 2016, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Banks and financial institutions

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the National Bank of Australia has announced a voluntary ban on all political donations to avoid perceptions of impropriety or graft; and

(b) calls on all parties and members of Parliament to refuse political donations from all banks and financial institutions to avoid perceptions of impropriety or graft.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

2nd May 2016, 4:20 PM – Senate Motions — Donations to Political Parties

Show detail

The majority of Senators disagreed with Senator Lee Rhiannon's motion:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) there is strong evidence that Leighton Holdings paid millions of dollars to Unaoil in 2010 and 2011, and was involved in serious corruption in Iraq,

(ii) since 2010, Leighton Holdings has donated at least $143,000 to the federal Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party,

(iii) in 2014-15 the property industry donated $1.8 million to the Liberal Party of Australia and $591,167 to the Australian Labor Party,

(iv) in 2014-15, Westpac, ANZ, NAB, the Commonwealth Bank and the Macquarie Group donated $1,057,361 to the major parties, and

(v) in 2013-14, Brickworks provided $263,000 in donations to the Liberal Party and offered in-kind campaign support to the federal Liberal Party to repeal the carbon price;

(b) the High Court of Australia Justices Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Chief Justice French stated in McCloy v NSW that reliance by political candidates on private patronage may, over time become so necessary as to sap the vitality as well as the integrity of the political branches of government; and

(c) calls on the Government to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to ban donations from property developers, tobacco industry business entities, liquor business entities, gambling industry business entities, mineral resources or mining industry business entities, and industry lobby groups who represent these entities.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

19th Apr 2016, 7:39 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - End fossil fuel political donations

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. The motion called on all political parties to ban and refuse to accept fossil fuel donations.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the unprecedented coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority describes as the worst ever mass bleaching event,

(ii) the devastating bushfires affecting areas of Tasmania's Wilderness World Heritage Area which have not been burned in centuries and which may never recover,

(iii) the fact that 2014 and 2015 were both the hottest year on record, and that the United Kingdom Meteorological Office predicts that 2016 will also be the hottest year on record,

(iv) that ordinary Australians are leading the way in calling for action on global warming, in particular, the students at the University of Queensland who have occupied the Chancellery Building calling on the University to divest from fossil fuels, and

(v) that fossil fuel companies have made $3.7 million in political donations to the Coalition and the Australian Labor Party since the 2013 election; and

(b) calls on all political parties to:

(i) support a legislative ban on fossil fuel donations, and

(ii) refuse to accept any more fossil fuel donations.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

24th Nov 2015, 3:51 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Ban certain political donations & establish independent corruption commission

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, which means that it failed.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) former Newcastle Lord Mayor and developer, Mr Jeff McCloy, lost his High Court case to overturn a New South Wales law banning developers from making political donations,

(ii) in its finding on the case, the High Court identified a more subtle kind of corruption known as clientelism, which is where officeholders will decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder,

(iii) the High Court also stated that the particular concern is that reliance by political candidates on private patronage may, over time, become so necessary as to sap the vitality, as well as the integrity, of the political branches of government, and

(iv) in dealing with solutions, the High Court found that, unlike straight cash-for-votes transactions, such corruption is neither easily detected nor practical to criminalise, and the best means of prevention is to identify and to remove the temptation; and

(b) calls on the Government:

(i) to ban political donations to parties and candidates from for-profit corporations, and

(ii) to establish an independent agency, similar to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, which works to expose corruption and enhance integrity at the federal level.

No Yes Not passed by a modest 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 7 0 70
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 1 72

*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 = 1 / 72 = 1.4%.

And then