How Kristina Keneally voted compared to someone who believes 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.

Division Kristina Keneally Supporters vote Division outcome

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

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). If successful, this amendment would have added the text below to the usual motion.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) billionaire Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation controls much of the Australian media,

(ii) billionaire Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook controls much of Australia's online activity, and

(iii) both big corporations pay little to no tax in Australia; and

(b) is of the opinion that implementing a media code is not the best way of addressing the growing power of the billionaires and the big corporations; and

(c) calls on the Government to deal with the growing concentration of media and online ownership by implementing new tax measures, funding public interest journalism and increasing media divers

absent Yes Not passed by a large majority

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

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that would have added certain words (see below) to the usual second reading motion that the bill be read for a second time (which means that the Senate agrees with the main idea of the bill).

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund was agreed by the Turnbull Liberal Government as part of a back-room deal with the then Nick Xenophon team in exchange for support for the repeal of the 2 out of 3 cross-media control rule in 2017;

(b) notes that the Government's disastrous record on media diversity and public interest journalism includes:

(i) removal of a key media diversity safeguard which prevented even greater consolidation in Australia's already highly concentrated media sector with the repeal of the 2 out of 3 cross-media control rule;

(ii) budget cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars from the ABC and SBS, which are trusted sources of investigative journalism in Australia;

(iii) pushing community television off the broadcast platform to an online delivery model without an adequate transition period;

(iv) threatening journalists with criminal sanctions simply for doing their jobs under the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017;

(v) policy inaction in the face of the loss of more than 3000 journalism jobs in Australia over the past five years;

(c) notes that media diversity and support for public interest journalism are not mutually exclusive and that Australia needs both;

(d) calls on the Government to stop actively undermining media diversity and public interest journalism in Australia;

(e) calls on the Turnbull Government to drop its destructive attack on the ABC; and

(f) calls on the Government to support media diversity and public interest journalism in Australia.".

Yes Yes Not passed by a small majority

How "voted strongly for" 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 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 11 12

*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 = 11 / 12 = 92%.

And then