How Peter Whish-Wilson voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should amend current laws in order to address the current power disparity between franchisor and franchisee

Division Peter Whish-Wilson Supporters vote Division outcome

22nd Feb 2021, 12:49 PM – Senate Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill, which is known as giving it a third reading. This means that the bill will now be sent to the House of Representatives for their consideration.

What does the bill do?

The bill was introduced in order to:

  • enable the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman to appoint a mediation and franchising adviser to assist in resolving franchising disputes where mediation has failed, or where both parties agree to arbitration;
  • give the ombudsman the power to assist with multi-party mediation and arbitration in franchising disputes where multiple parties have identical issues that require resolution; and
  • increase the civil penalties provisions for breaching the Franchising Code of Conduct.
Yes Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

22nd Feb 2021, 12:41 PM – Senate Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill's main idea, which is known as giving it a second reading. This means that the bill will now be discussed in greater detail.

What is the boy's main idea?

The bill was introduced in order to:

  • enable the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman to appoint a mediation and franchising adviser to assist in resolving franchising disputes where mediation has failed, or where both parties agree to arbitration;
  • give the ombudsman the power to assist with multi-party mediation and arbitration in franchising disputes where multiple parties have identical issues that require resolution; and
  • increase the civil penalties provisions for breaching the Franchising Code of Conduct.
Yes Yes (strong) 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 2 100 100
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: 100 100

*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 = 100 / 100 = 100%.

And then