How Jane Hume 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 Jane Hume Supporters vote Division outcome

2nd Sep 2021, 10:33 AM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Publication of COVID-19 payment info

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against amendments moved by South Australian Senator Rex Patrick (Independent), which means they failed.

What do these amendments do?

Senator Patrick explained that:

These amendments are designed to provide a level of transparency around those companies that receive JobKeeper. We must understand that JobKeeper was passed by this parliament on 8 April 2020, not as a scheme with any particular form but as a head of power that allowed the Treasurer to introduce or declare rules around the program that is now known as JobKeeper. The parliament had very little to do with the construction of the JobKeeper scheme, and that was because it was an emergency. Everyone understood it was an emergency. We wanted to get through the pandemic and keep employers and employees connected, so it was the will of this parliament that the program be implemented. But the details came down to the Treasurer, and he basically created an honesty system where you didn't have to show anything as actuals. Rather, you were able simply to project and indicate to the Taxation Office that you thought your revenue would drop by either 30 or 50 per cent, depending on the nature of the company.

The idea behind that was quite okay. Particularly in those circumstances, there would have been a lot of cash-flow issues for companies, and what was put in place was good. Unfortunately, there was no clawback regime put in place to deal either with dishonesty or with people who got through the bump and actually did a lot better than perhaps they might have done in the previous year. And that's where the problem lies; there's been a huge prudential failure in relation to the JobKeeper program.

Amendment text

Full amendment text is available on sheet 1411.

No Yes Not passed

9th Aug 2021, 8:58 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time. In other words, they voted to pass the bill in the Senate. Because several amendments were added to the bill in the Senate, it will now return to the House of Representatives to see if they agree with the changes.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest, the bill includes two schedules. The first is not controversial. It will "allow meetings to be held virtually, to allow documents relating to meetings to be provided and signed electronically and for minutes to be kept electronically" (see the bills digest for more information).

Schedule 2 is very controversial, because it effectively waters down current continuous disclosure provisions, as well as misleading and deceptive conduct provisions, by making it harder to enforce civil penalties against people who allegedly breach these provisions.

According to the bills digest, Schedule 2 will:

  • permanently add a fault element to continuous disclosure civil penalty provisions, so that a person will only be eligible for a civil penalty where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence in failing to update the market with price sensitive information
  • impose the same fault standard for misleading and deceptive conduct that relates to alleged failure to provide an update with price sensitive information to the market
  • retain the existing standard for administrative penalties, so ASIC can continue to issue infringement notices without proving knowledge, recklessness or negligence. The existing standard is also retained for ASIC’s other non-pecuniary enforcement tools, such as requiring the disclosure of information to the market by obtaining a court order.
Yes No Passed by a small majority

9th Aug 2021, 8:51 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Agree with bill as amended

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree to the bill, as amended. This vote ends the 'in committee' stage of debate and means that the Senate can now decide on whether they wish to pass the bill in its amended form.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest, the bill includes two schedules. The first is not controversial. It will "allow meetings to be held virtually, to allow documents relating to meetings to be provided and signed electronically and for minutes to be kept electronically" (see the bills digest for more information).

Schedule 2 is very controversial, because it effectively waters down current continuous disclosure provisions, as well as misleading and deceptive conduct provisions, by making it harder to enforce civil penalties against people who allegedly breach these provisions.

According to the bills digest, Schedule 2 will:

  • permanently add a fault element to continuous disclosure civil penalty provisions, so that a person will only be eligible for a civil penalty where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence in failing to update the market with price sensitive information
  • impose the same fault standard for misleading and deceptive conduct that relates to alleged failure to provide an update with price sensitive information to the market
  • retain the existing standard for administrative penalties, so ASIC can continue to issue infringement notices without proving knowledge, recklessness or negligence. The existing standard is also retained for ASIC’s other non-pecuniary enforcement tools, such as requiring the disclosure of information to the market by obtaining a court order.
Yes No Passed by a small majority

9th Aug 2021, 8:45 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Get rid of exemption to scrutiny

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against amendments introduced by SA Senator Rex Patrick (Independent), which means they failed.

What did the amendments do?

Senator Patrick explained that:

This is not the first time I've moved this amendment. I do hope it is the last. If needed, I will move it again and again and again, on every Treasury bill that comes through the Senate. I'll do it for however long it takes to repeal what is a completely unjustifiable and indefensible exemption, which gives dozens of Australian billionaires the chance to keep their private companies' financial statements and how much tax they do or don't pay a secret. There's an old saying that there's one rule for the rich and another rule for everybody else. Well, in this case, that is literally the truth. We've had a legal loophole for more than a quarter of a century that continues to keep Australia's super rich free from scrutiny and likely facilitates aggressive tax minimisation.

For senators who haven't kept abreast of this, my amendment will rid the Federal Register of Legislation of an extraordinary provision in the Corporations Act which exempts a select list of large proprietary companies from having to lodge financial reports with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. That exemption includes the companies' financial statements and directors' declarations to ASIC. This is highly problematic. The exemption has inappropriately created and entrenched in place a highly privileged class of companies that are not subject to the transparency and disclosure regimes that apply to every other company. If my amendment passes, then that completely inappropriate and unjustified legislative privilege will be abolished.

No Yes (strong) Not passed

9th Aug 2021, 7:37 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time. In other words, they voted to agree with the bill's main idea. This means they can now discuss it in greater detail.

What does this bill do?

According to the bills digest, the bill includes two schedules. The first is not controversial. It will "allow meetings to be held virtually, to allow documents relating to meetings to be provided and signed electronically and for minutes to be kept electronically" (see the bills digest for more information).

Schedule 2 is very controversial, because it effectively waters down current continuous disclosure provisions, as well as misleading and deceptive conduct provisions, by making it harder to enforce civil penalties against people who allegedly breach these provisions.

According to the bills digest, Schedule 2 will:

  • permanently add a fault element to continuous disclosure civil penalty provisions, so that a person will only be eligible for a civil penalty where they have acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence in failing to update the market with price sensitive information
  • impose the same fault standard for misleading and deceptive conduct that relates to alleged failure to provide an update with price sensitive information to the market
  • retain the existing standard for administrative penalties, so ASIC can continue to issue infringement notices without proving knowledge, recklessness or negligence. The existing standard is also retained for ASIC’s other non-pecuniary enforcement tools, such as requiring the disclosure of information to the market by obtaining a court order.
Yes No Passed by a large majority

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.

Yes 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.

No 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.

No Yes Passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2018, 12:19 PM – Senate Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill in the Senate, which means the bill will now go to the House of Representatives for their consideration. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time.

What does the bill do?

NSW Senator Doug Cameron (Labor) explained that:

This bill implements a very specific tax transparency measure. The Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017 amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to require the Commissioner of Taxation to publicly release tax data for large private firms with turnover of $100 million or over. This is as Labor originally legislated in 2013 in the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. Section 3C of the act details the type of income and tax information the Commissioner of Taxation is required to make publicly available annually for corporate entities. The bill addresses a prominent deficiency in the tax transparency regime that arose after amendments were made in 2015 and it brings approximately 600 large companies into the tax transparency regime.

No Yes Passed by a small 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 8 0 80
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 130

*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 / 130 = 0.0%.

And then