How Penny Wright voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should establish a Royal Commission into misconduct within the banking and financial services sector.

Division Penny Wright Supporters vote Division outcome

24th Jun 2015 – Senate Committees — Financial Services

Show detail

Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson moved

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

  • (i) the recommendations of the Economics References Committee inquiry into the performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and

  • (ii) the allegations that financial planners at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, ANZ Bank, Macquarie Bank and, most recently, IOOF had engaged in unethical and/or unlawful activity; and

(b) calls on the Government to establish a royal commission into misconduct within the financial services sector.

Peter Whish-Wilson explained:

It is time for a broad-ranging royal commission in this country into white collar crime and misconduct in the financial services sector. Nearly 12 months ago, the Senate inquiry of the Economics Committee made a recommendation for a royal commission into the Commonwealth Bank. Following that, in the last 12 months, thanks to some brave whistleblowers and some dogged reporting from Fairfax journalists, we have seen allegations and revelations of misconduct at Macquarie Bank, ANZ, National Australia Bank and, recently, at IOOF. How many more scandals are lurking under the surface?

Although the Senate has done some good work, and I do commend some of my colleagues in this chamber for their work, the committee made a recommendation for a good reason. That is, a royal commission would have the powers to get to the bottom of this and sort it out once and for all for the good of the financial services sector and for the good of the Australian people. I recommend my fellow senators support this motion

Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield argued that a Royal Commission was not needed due to existing scrutiny of the financial services sector and ongoing inquiries.

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest 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 1 50 50
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 50 50

*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 = 50 / 50 = 100%.

And then