How Concetta Fierravanti-Wells voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should use regulation to increase the diversity of publishers and broadcasters in Australia's media industry by, for example, setting a threshold for the maximum market share of any one company.

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing the diversity of media ownership” which Concetta Fierravanti-Wells could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Concetta Fierravanti-Wells on this policy.

Division Concetta Fierravanti-Wells Supporters vote

14th Sep 2017, 5:48 PM – Senate Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and another - Third Reading - Pass the bills

Yes No

14th Sep 2017, 5:44 PM – Senate Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Agree with bills

Yes No

14th Sep 2017, 5:07 PM – Senate Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 - in Committee - 2-out-of-3 cross media rule

Yes No

14th Sep 2017, 5:03 PM – Senate Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 - in Committee - 2-out-of-3 cross media rule

No Yes

13th Sep 2017, 10:24 PM – Senate Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bills' main idea

Yes No

11th Oct 2006, 6:13 PM – Senate Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and three related bill - Second Reading - Agree with the main idea of the bills

Yes No

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing the diversity of media ownership” which Concetta Fierravanti-Wells could have attended.

Division Concetta Fierravanti-Wells Supporters vote

23rd Feb 2021, 7:07 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Media diversity and funding

No Yes

9th May 2018, 7:02 PM – Senate Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Media diversity

No Yes

How "voted consistently against" is worked out

They Vote For You gives each vote a score based on whether the MP voted in agreement with the policy or not. These scores are then averaged with a weighting across all votes that the MP could have voted on relevant to the policy. The overall average score is then converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

When an MP votes in agreement with a policy the vote is scored as 100%. When they vote against the policy it is scored as 0% and when they are absent it is scored half way between the two at 50%. The half way point effectively says "we don't know whether they are for or against this policy".

The overall agreement score for the policy is worked out by a weighted average of the scores for each vote. The weighting has been chosen so that the most important votes have a weighting 5 times that of the less important votes. Also, absent votes on less important votes are weighted 5 times less again to not penalise MPs for not attending the less important votes. Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always mean they've abstained.

Type of vote Agreement score (s) Weight (w) No of votes (n)
Most important votes MP voted with policy 100% 25 0
MP voted against policy 0% 25 6
MP absent 50% 25 0
Less important votes MP voted with policy 100% 5 0
MP voted against policy 0% 5 2
MP absent 50% 1 0

The final agreement score is a weighted average (weighted arithmetic mean) of the scores of the individual votes.

Average agreement score = sum(n×w×s) / sum(n×w) = 0.0 / 160 = 0%.

And then this average agreement score