Photo of Barry O'Sullivan

Barry O'Sullivan voted very strongly against ending Governor-General allowances for serious misconduct

How Barry O'Sullivan voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should cease paying allowances to former Governor-Generals if they are found to have engaged in serious misconduct

Division Barry O'Sullivan Supporters vote Division outcome

3rd Apr 2019, 8:55 PM – Senate Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - No allowances where serious misconduct

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Victorian Senator Derryn Hinch (Derryn Hinch's Justice Party), which means it failed. The motion would have added the words set out below to the usual second reading motion "That this bill be now read a second time," which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. In other words, this motion would have left the bill unchanged but made certain other requests of the Government.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) notes public concerns that former Governors-General are entitled to receive allowances even if they have engaged in serious misconduct; and

(b) calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Governor- General Act 1974 to end the payment of allowances to Governors-General who have engaged in serious misconduct."

 No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

3rd Apr 2019, 8:51 PM – Senate Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Serious misconduct

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Victorian Senator Derryn Hinch (Derryn Hinch's Justice Party), which means it failed.

What was the amendment?

The amendment would have inserted the following into the bill:

4AGA Cessation of allowances for serious misconduct

(1) Allowances cease to be payable to a former Governor-General or a spouse of a former Governor-General under this Act if each House of the Parliament passes a resolution that the House is of the opinion that the former Governor-General has engaged in serious misconduct.

(2) The allowances cease to be payable from the day after the day the second House passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (1).

In other words, if a former Governor-General engaged in serious misconduct, they are not eligible for allowances.

 No Yes (strong) 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 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 60

*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 = 0 / 60 = 0.0%.

And then