How Mehreen Faruqi voted compared to someone who believes that the federal govenment should increase transparency in big business (that is, companies with an income equal or more than $100 million/year or, alternatively, $200 million/year) by making certain information public, including their total income and how much tax they paid

Division Mehreen Faruqi Supporters vote Division outcome

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.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

26th Nov 2018 – Senate Motions - Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

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

Motion text

(1) That the Senate notes that—

(a) on 16 October 2018, the Senate ordered the Commissioner of Taxation to provide information (company names to the Economics Legislation Committee related to designated financial entities that have lodged late, or not yet lodged, a corporate income tax return;

(b) on 5 November 2018, the Minister for Finance and the Public Service advanced a public interest immunity claim on the grounds that the disclosure of individual taxpayer information to the committee will harm the public interest by undermining public confidence in taxation laws and taxation administration;

(c) the Minister for Finance and the Public Service also claimed that the disclosure of this information will have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient operations of the Australian Taxation Office;

(d) except in circumstances where the Parliament has explicitly carved out the ability for a House of Parliament to make inquiries, the secrecy provisions of legislation are subservient to the Constitution-derived inquiry powers of Senate;

(e) disclosing the names of financial entities that have not complied with tax laws does not undermine taxation laws and taxation administration, but rather may serve to encourage compliance with taxation laws; and

(f) Australia's tax transparency laws oblige the Commissioner of Taxation to annually publish selected income tax information, including the company name, for certain taxpayers and this has not resulted in the purported harm.

(2) That the Senate affirms that:

(a) there are few circumstances in which a corporation can be of the view they are entitled to anonymity;

(b) the public interest balance lies in favour of the disclosure of companies in breach of taxation law; and

(c) the Senate does not accept the public interest immunity claim advanced by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service.

(3) That the Senate orders the Commissioner of Taxation to comply with the balance of the order agreed to by the Senate on 16 October 2018.

absent Yes Passed by a small majority

How "voted very 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 2 20 20
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 21 22

*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 = 21 / 22 = 95%.

And then