How Stephen Parry voted compared to someone who believes that The federal government should make its data and documents more accessible for the general public and Parliament

Division Stephen Parry Supporters vote Division outcome

12th Sep 2016, 3:54 PM – Senate Motions - Roads - Access to information

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Janet Rice, which means it was unsuccessful.

What was the motion?

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) Transurban now either fully or partially operates 13 of the 15 toll roads in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane,

(ii) Transurban's role in the construction and future operation of Melbourne's Western Distributor, a 'market-led' proposal,

(iii) Transurban's stated intention to become the 'natural custodian' of Australia's motorways as policy shifts towards greater road pricing,

(iv) the New South Wales Government's stated intention to sell down its stake in the WestConnex project,

(v) the extension of Transurban's Citylink monopoly as part of the Western Distributor contract, and

(vi) the Productivity Commission's assessment of the dangers of public private partnerships unless the "risks are transferred efficiently, transparently and credibly, with incentives that align the interests of the private sector with that of the public"; and

(b) supports the approach that all contracts, business cases, transport and economic modelling and other associated documents of governments and between governments and private contractors in the planning, construction and operation of toll roads should be made fully available to the public, unredacted, in a timely manner.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

19th Apr 2016, 7:36 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Present documents to the Senate

Show detail

The majority voted for a motion introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which means it was successful. The motion asked for documents relating to asylum seeker contracts to be "laid on the table" (that is, presented to the Senate).

Motion text

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 21 April 2016:

(a) any, and all, documents in the Australian Government's possession, including, and in relation to:

(i) any contracts between Broadspectrum (formerly known as Transfield Services) and its subcontractor Wilson Security in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea,

(ii) any sub-contracts engaged in by Wilson Security and other entities in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, and

(iii) any contracts between the Australian Government and Wilson Security in relation to the Government and its agencies;

(b) any, and all, documents in the Australian Government's possession pertaining to the procurement and due diligence process undertaken prior to the awarding of any contracts between:

(i) the Australian Government and Broadspectrum, and its subcontractor Wilson Security, in relation to operations on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, including Wilson Security's directorship and or the Kwok family, and

(ii) the Australian Government and Wilson Security in relation to the Government and its agencies, including Wilson Security's directorship and or the Kwok family; and

(c) any, and all, documents in relation to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's internal investigation, and or review, into Wilson Security's role in relation on Nauru and Manus Island as reported in the Australian on 7 April 2016.

No Yes Passed by a small majority

15th Oct 2015, 12:18 PM – Senate Documents — Nous Group; Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

The Senate passed the motion:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Education and Training, no later than 3.30 pm on Thursday, 15 October 2015, the following:

(a) a redacted copy of any reports delivered under the Nous Group contract, ‘Assessment of Stakeholder Views—Higher Education’ listed on the Austender website (contract number CN3277481), omitting any reference to the views expressed by individual senators or their staff; and

(b) all other documentation related to the contract, including the contract itself and any correspondence between the Nous Group and the Minister or his department, omitting any reference to the views expressed by individual senators or their staff.

The motion was presented by Kim Carr on behalf of themselves, Jacqui Lambie, Glenn Lazarus and Rachel Siewert.

Following this division, Kim Carr published a press release further explaining their position and motivations behind this motion.

The Guardian had previously reported on the contract reference in this motion in “Coalition paying $150,000 to outsource higher education negotiations: Talks with Senate crossbenchers and universities are being led by Robert Griew of Nous Group, which won contract to assess ‘stakeholder views’” (7 August 2015).

No Yes Passed by a small majority

3rd Mar 2015, 3:42 PM – Senate Documents – National Mental Health Commission – Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

On the request of Senator McLucas, Senator Anne McEwen moved:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, no later than 9.30 am on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, copies of the following National Mental Health Commission documents in relation to its Mental Health review:

  • (i) the preliminary report which was completed during February 2014,

  • (ii) the interim report of the Mental Health Review which was completed in June 2014, and

  • (iii) the final report which was completed by the end of November 2014; and

(b) the Senate not accept a public interest immunity claim by the Minister that tabling these documents would impact the Government's ability to properly respond to the Mental Health Review because:

  • (i) organisations in the mental health sector are losing staff and being forced to cut services because of the lack of certainty the Government is causing by not releasing the reports,

  • (ii) the production of these documents is necessary to allow people living with mental illness, their representative organisations and service providers to have an open and honest conversation about the future of the mental health system in Australia,

  • (iii) the Mental Health Review must be transparent for the community to have faith in the review outcomes,

  • (iv) there has been significant demand from the mental health sector for the reports to be made available to allow for an informed debate in the lead up to Government decision making around the 2015 16 Budget, and

  • (v) the more than 1 800 organisations and individuals that made submissions to the review have the right to see these reports.

No Yes Passed by a small majority

12th Feb 2015, 12:22 PM – Senate Mental Health – Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

The motion was read by Senator Anne Urquhart on behalf of Senator Jan McLucas:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, no later than 3.30 pm on Thursday, 12 February 2015, copies of the following National Mental Health Commission documents in relation to its Mental Health review:

  • (i) the preliminary report which was completed during February 2014,
  • (ii) the interim report which was completed in June 2014, and
  • (iii) the final report which was completed by the end of November 2014; and

(b) the Senate not accept a public interest immunity claim by the Minister that tabling these documents would impact the Government's ability to properly respond to the Mental Health review because:

  • (i) the production of these documents is necessary to allow people living with mental illness, their representative organisations and service providers to have an open and honest conversation about the future of the mental health system in Australia,
  • (ii) the Mental Health review must be transparent for the community to have faith in the review outcomes,
  • (iii) there has been significant demand from the mental health sector for the reports to be made available to allow for an informed debate in the lead up to Government decision making around the 2015 16 Budget, and
  • (iv) the more than 1,800 organisations and individuals that made submissions to the review have the right to see these reports.
absent Yes Passed by a small majority

11th Feb 2015, 3:50 PM – Senate Motions — Request for more transparency in Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Show detail

The motion put by Senator Urquhart on behalf of Senator Wong relates to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and asks that the public be kept more informed of details of the current negotiations. The motion draws attention to a 2013 Senate order requiring that details in this type of trade agreement be made public a minimum of 14 days before being signed, which would require a statement by 4pm 12/2/2015 in this case.

Motion:

(a) the Senate—

(i) notes the Abbott Government's failure to keep Parliament and the public informed of the nature and progress of its trade negotiations,

(ii) expresses concern that the Abbott Government's lack of transparency diminishes industry and community engagement and undermines support for trade liberalisation,

(iii) draws to the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Investment the order of the Senate of 11 December 2013 requiring bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements to be tabled at least 14 days before signing, and

(iv) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Investment to make a statement in the Senate on the status of negotiations on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership no later than 4 pm on Thursday, 12 February 2015;

(b) at the conclusion of the statement a senator may move to take note of the statement; or

(c) if no statement has been made by the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Investment by 4 pm on Thursday, 12 February 2015, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) may immediately move a further motion relating to the Minister's failure to comply.

No Yes Passed by a small majority

3rd Dec 2014, 4:07 PM – Senate Documents – PricewaterhouseCoopers Data Retention Legislation Report – Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

The Senate voted in support of Senator Scott Ludlam’s motion:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Attorney-General, no later than noon on Thursday, 4 December 2014:

  • (i) the summarised findings of the PricewaterhouseCoopers study or a copy of the study with commercially sensitive information redacted; and

  • (ii) a timeline for the Government's process for developing cost estimates for its data retention policy.

Division 24th Nov 2014, 4:44 PM – Senate Documents — Telecommunications; Order for the Production of Documents is potentially related.

No Yes Passed by a small majority

2nd Dec 2014, 3:58 PM – Senate Documents – China-Australia Trade Agreement – Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

The majority of senators voted against Peter Whish-Wilson’s motion:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Investment, no later than noon on 3 December 2014, the substantially concluded text of the China-Australia Trade Agreement.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

24th Nov 2014, 4:44 PM – Senate Documents — Telecommunications; Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

Senator Scott Ludlam moved:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Attorney-General's Department is reported to have contracted PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct a financial study into the cost of the Government's data retention policy, and

(ii) the Government has not stated what the cost to the Australian public and to the telecommunications industry of its data retention policy will be; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis), no later than noon on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 the:

(i) terms of reference for the PricewaterhouseCoopers study, and

(ii) any report provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the calendar year 2014 to the Government concerning the cost of data retention.

No Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

24th Nov 2014, 4:33 PM – Senate Documents — Asylum Seekers; Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

The senate voted in favour of Senator Kim Carr's motion:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, no later than 3.30 pm on Thursday, 27 November 2014, the report of the investigation by Transfield Services of allegations regarding the treatment of asylum seekers in the Manus Island regional processing centre, as referred to in a statement released by the Minister's office on 3 November 2014.

No Yes Passed by a small majority

29th Oct 2014 – Senate Motions - Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement - Give members of Parliament access to the draft text

Show detail

The majority disagreed that the Minister for Trade and Investment and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should give members of Parliament access to the draft text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson had proposed this.

Background to the motion

The Australian Parliament will not be able to see the final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement until after it is signed. This is unlike the United States Congress and the Malaysian Parliament, who are allowed access to the draft text before their countries sign it.

Motion

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson moved that:

That the Senate—

(a) notes members of the:

  • (i) Australian Parliament will only be allowed to see the final text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (the Agreement) once it has been signed,
  • (ii) United States of America Congress are allowed access to the Agreement draft text, and
  • (iii) Malaysian Parliament will be shown the draft text prior to Malaysia signing the Agreement; and

(b) calls on the Minister for Trade and Investment and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to allow members of Parliament access to the Agreement draft text.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

28th Aug 2014, 12:06 PM – Senate Motions - ABC and SBS - Give Senate a copy of efficiency review

Show detail

The majority agreed that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications gives the Senate a copy of Mr Peter Lewis’s efficiency review of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ('ABC') and Special Broadcasting Service ('SBS') (in parliamentary jargon, they agreed the review should be 'laid on the table'). This was proposed by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.

Text of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 31 January 2014, the Minister for Communications announced an efficiency review of both national broadcasters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), to be conducted by Mr Peter Lewis, and

(i) despite the potentially serious ramifications of the Lewis report for the ABC and SBS, the Government has to date failed to make the report available for public consideration; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, no later than 2 pm on Monday, 1 September 2014, a copy of Mr Lewis’s efficiency review of the ABC and SBS.

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "voted 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 10 0 500
MP absent 1 25 50
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 6 0 60
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 36 622

*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 / 622 = 5.8%.

And then