How Kristina Keneally voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should make it harder for individuals and corporations to avoid or aggressively minimise their Australian tax obligations and take part in international efforts to keep track of these individuals and corporations by sharing income and asset information

Division Kristina Keneally Supporters vote Division outcome

9th Aug 2021, 8:45 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Get rid of exemption to scrutiny

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against amendments introduced by SA Senator Rex Patrick (Independent), which means they failed.

What did the amendments do?

Senator Patrick explained that:

This is not the first time I've moved this amendment. I do hope it is the last. If needed, I will move it again and again and again, on every Treasury bill that comes through the Senate. I'll do it for however long it takes to repeal what is a completely unjustifiable and indefensible exemption, which gives dozens of Australian billionaires the chance to keep their private companies' financial statements and how much tax they do or don't pay a secret. There's an old saying that there's one rule for the rich and another rule for everybody else. Well, in this case, that is literally the truth. We've had a legal loophole for more than a quarter of a century that continues to keep Australia's super rich free from scrutiny and likely facilitates aggressive tax minimisation.

For senators who haven't kept abreast of this, my amendment will rid the Federal Register of Legislation of an extraordinary provision in the Corporations Act which exempts a select list of large proprietary companies from having to lodge financial reports with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. That exemption includes the companies' financial statements and directors' declarations to ASIC. This is highly problematic. The exemption has inappropriately created and entrenched in place a highly privileged class of companies that are not subject to the transparency and disclosure regimes that apply to every other company. If my amendment passes, then that completely inappropriate and unjustified legislative privilege will be abolished.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed

17th Jun 2020, 6:28 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Do not insist on amendments

Show detail

The majority voted against the following motion:

That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

In other words, the majority of the Senate has insisted on its amendments. The bill will now return to the House. Note that this bill cannot become law unless one of the following things take place:

(a) The House agrees to the Senate amendments; OR (b) The Senate agrees to not insist on their amendments.

The Senate amendments relate to certain exemptions for large proprietary companies.

No No Not passed by a small majority

17th Jun 2020, 11:23 AM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Exemptions for large proprietary companies

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of amendments introduced by SA Senator Rex Patrick (Centre Alliance), which means it succeeded.

What do the amendments do?

Senator Patrick explained that:

This amendment seeks to remove from the statutes an exemption for 1,119 large proprietary companies from having to lodge an annual return with ASIC. That exemption creates a situation where there is scope for aggressive tax minimisation. That is what was presented to the Senate committee inquiring into corporate tax avoidance in the 44th and 45th parliaments. It also creates a situation where you have one class of companies and another class of companies. Any new company that comes along that meets the criteria for annual reports doesn't get an exemption. We can't have a situation where we have elite, wealthy business owners simply not having to lodge annual reports.

absent Yes Passed by a small majority

How "voted a mixture of for and 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 1 25 50
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: 36 62

*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 = 36 / 62 = 58%.

And then