How Jane Hume voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce restrictions to the amount and type of donations that political parties can receive in order to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption in government

Division Jane Hume Supporters vote Division outcome

3rd Sep 2020, 10:17 AM – Senate Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Restrict political donations

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Waters explained her amendment:

There are three elements to this amendment. Firstly, it redefines 'gift' to include party memberships and to include subscriptions to various different party forums. I will come back to that. Essentially, that refers to pay-for-access meetings—the lobster luncheons. It then bans completely donations from a number of industries that have a long history of seeking undue influence in return for political donations. That list is property developers, banks, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, big mining, defence and big pharma. The Greens think that those industries should not be able to donate one cent because they have a sordid history of seeking influence as a result of making those donations. Lastly—and this is perhaps the most important reform—we would like to see donations from everybody else, no matter whether you're an individual, on organisation or a corporation, capped at $1,000 a year or $3,000 for a three-year term, which, obviously, works out to $1,000 a year. That is a constitutional way of ensuring that people can still support causes that they believe in, but it makes sure that you can't buy undue influence and seek to have policies made to address your personal needs or to address and boost your personal corporate profits. We want to see big money out of politics entirely, and this is how you do it. You bring in public funding. You cap spending and, importantly, you cap donations and you stop donations from those industries that have long sought undue influence over decision-makers.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

2nd Sep 2020, 7:21 PM – Senate Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Reform donation arrangements

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network), which means they were unsuccessful.

While outlining the Greens Party's support for the bill, Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens) explained some aspects of these amendments:

The Greens will be supporting this amendment which has a series of features within it. It lowers the disclosure threshold, which we support, as we've discussed already on this bill ... my understanding is that this amendment would impose a threshold of disclosure of $2,500, but that's a damn sight less than $14,300. I understand that this now also has some changes to the time frame for disclosure. As I said earlier today, at the minute you need to disclose only once a year, on 1 February, and because of the time lag between calendar years and financial years it can be up to 19 months before it's put in the public domain as to which donor donated to which political party. That is so far beneath what is a transparent and accountable approach to disclosure ... These amendments would have, on my reading of them, a six-month disclosure time frame—which, again, is not quite as rigorous as the Greens would like, but it is still better than the current rules. So, on that basis, we support that element, because it's an improvement.

I understand that there are also some provisions in this amendment that go to anonymous donations. They've long been discussed, because it's a balance between the administrative burden we place on donors and political parties and the need for the public to know who's paying whom. There have long been recommendations for a cap of between $50 and $500 on anonymous donations. And when I say 'anonymous', the example often used is buying a raffle ticket at a party function, so it's not anything that's necessarily nefarious, as 'anonymous' might imply; it's merely those smaller amounts of casual support that many people express and that aren't of a significant amount that would exert an undue influence.

Again, my understanding of these amendments is that they lower that threshold to $500. The Greens would like to see it lower than that. We've pegged it at $50 but, on the basis that this proposed threshold is at least an improvement on our current laws, we will be supporting that as well.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

2nd Sep 2020, 6:42 PM – Senate Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Lower disclosure threshold

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means they failed.

Senator Waters explained her amendments:

The effect of these amendments would be to reduce the federal disclosure threshold of political donations down to $1,000. It was originally $13,500 but it's indexed, so at the moment you can donate just shy of $14,300 to a federal political party for a federal purpose and you don't need to tell anybody about it; it's absolutely opaque. Donations just shy of the disclosure threshold are routinely made, and the public doesn't have the ability to hear about them. This amendment would repeat many amendments over the years that many experts and, in fact, other political parties have moved to reduce that threshold of disclosure down to $1,000.

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 8), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 287(1) (definition of disclosure threshold )

Omit "$13,800", substitute "$1,000".

1B Subsection 287(1) (note to the definition of disclosure threshold )

Repeal the note.

(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 26, insert:

26A After subsection 305A(1A)

Insert:

(1B) An amount prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) or (1A)(b) must not be more than the disclosure threshold.

(3) Schedule 1, items 32 and 33, page 11 (lines 11 to 17), omit the items, substitute:

32 Section 321A

Repeal the section.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

2nd Sep 2020, 11:29 AM – Senate Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Amend donation laws

Show detail

The same number of senators voted for and against an amendment introduced by South Australian Senator Don Farrell, which means it didn't gain a majority and therefore failed. The amendment would have amended the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time." Reading a bill for a second time is the same as agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

Amendment text

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) is of the opinion that Australia's electoral system would be strengthened by:

(i) lowering the disclosure threshold for political donations from the current $14,300 to $1,000,

(ii) removing the indexation of the political donation disclosure threshold, and

(iii) requiring recipients of political donations to disclose those donations within seven days;

(b) notes that the Opposition has introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures – Lowering the Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019 and the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures – Real Time Disclosure) Bill 2019, which, if enacted, would achieve these outcomes;

(c) calls on the Government to support these bills; and

(d) is also of the opinion that Australia's electoral system would be further strengthened by:

(i) implementing caps on political donations and electoral expenditure,

(ii) increasing the rate of public funding concurrently with the implementation of these caps, to reduce the reliance of participants in the political process on political fundraising, and

(iii) introducing administrative funding for parties and elected independents to cover administrative and operating expenses".

No Yes Not passed

3rd Dec 2019, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Climate change

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

(a) notes that:

(i) on 1 December 2019, the Federal Government submitted the State Party Report on the state of conservation report of the Great Barrier Reef (the Reef) World Heritage Area,

(ii) the State Party Report responds to the World Heritage Committee Decision in 2015, requesting the Government to outline how the Reef's Outstanding Universal Value is being protected to avert a World Heritage In Danger listing,

(iii) the State Party Report recognises that mass coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017, tropical cyclones, flooding, and crown-of-thorns starfish have impacted the Outstanding Universal Value of the Reef since 2015,

(iv) the Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2019 found that the long-term outlook for the Reef 's ecosystem has deteriorated from poor to very poor, and climate change and land-based run-off remain the key threats,

(v) the State Party Report states that the Government is 'actively managing the pressures over which we have direct control through investment and regulation based on the best available science',

(vi) United Nations scientific reports have confirmed that if global temperature rises by 1.5°C, 90% of coral in the Reef will be lost and 100% of coral will be lost at 2.0°C,

(vii) the Government has established a Senate inquiry questioning the water science informing regulation of land-based run-off into the Reef,

(viii) Government representatives have advocated for the removal of climate change threats as a consideration for World Heritage In Danger listing decisions, and

(ix) fossil fuel companies have donated nearly $5 million to the Liberals, Nationals and Labor parties over the past four years; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) implement a climate policy to limit global warming to 1.5°C to protect the Great Barrier Reef,

(ii) manage the key pressures over which it has control by revoking all federal approvals for the Adani Carmichael mine and not approve any new coal in Australia, and

(iii) ban corporate donations to political parties from the fossil fuel industry, an industry which financially benefits from this Federal Government's lack of action on climate change.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

2nd Apr 2019, 5:00 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Donations + Adani

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Larissa Waters, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) this year, Adani has confirmed it released contaminated water into the Caley Valley Wetlands from its Abbot Point Operations last week at twice the rate it is licensed for, earning it a $13,055 penalty infringement fine from the Queensland Department of Environment and Science,

(ii) this is the second time Adani has breached licence requirements at the site and exceeded pollution limits into the wetlands area,

(iii) the Queensland Government is prosecuting Adani for the first known contaminated water release, which occurred in 2017,

(iv) Adani Mining, as part of the Adani Group, has been investigated by the Department of the Environment and Energy for potential breach of its approval conditions for the Carmichael Mine, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EBPC Act), for unlawfully clearing vegetation and sinking groundwater dewatering bores,

(v) Adani Infrastructure, as part of the Adani Group, has applied for EPBC Act approval for a pipeline to bring water to the mine site for washing of the coal,

(vi) Adani donated $35,000 to the Liberal Party and $15,000 to One Nation in the 2017-18 financial year, and

(vii) opening up the Galilee Basin for the Adani Carmichael coal mine would release low quality thermal coal carbon emissions into the atmosphere, with catastrophic impacts on our climate, manifesting in heatwaves, storms, fires and floods of even greater magnitude than what we have seen this summer; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) return the $35,000 donation made by Adani to the Liberal Party,

(ii) review Adani's environmental approval under section 145 of the EPBC Act, based on new information, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2018 Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 °C, and the evidence of Adani's breaches of environmental law, both in Australia and overseas,

(iii) refuse to approve Adani's draft groundwater management plan,

(iv) refuse approval under the EPBC Act for the pipeline the mine requires, the North Galilee Water scheme,

(v) revoke all federal approvals for the Adani Carmichael mine, and not approve any new coal in Australia, and

(vi) apply caretaker conventions and seek Labor's assent to positions taken on the groundwater management plan and the pipeline the mine requires, and on whether to review and revoke the mine approval.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

13th Feb 2019, 4:20 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Introduced restrictions

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Qld Senator Larissa Waters, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the gambling industry donated almost $3 million dollars to the Liberal, Labor and Australian Conservatives political parties in 2017-18,

(ii) these donations came from sports betting companies, casinos and poker machine operators,

(iii) the Australian Hotels Association was the second largest political donor in the country for the 2017-18 year, with declared political gifts leaping from $153,000 in 2016-17 to $1.1 million last financial year,

(iv) Australia has the world's worst per-capita gambling losses of $1,000 a head,

(v) there are at least 115,000 Australians at the moment who are directly and seriously harmed by gambling, and another 280,000 experiencing significant risk,

(vi) for every person directly harmed by gambling, between 5 and 10 friends, family and others, including employers, are also affected – this means that up to 5 million Australians could be negatively affected,

(vii) online wagering is the fastest growing gambling segment, with over $1.4 billion gambled online each year,

(viii) pokies cause the most harm, with three out of four people being harmed by gambling, principally using poker machines, and

(ix) enormous donations from the gambling lobby to the major political parties has resulted in consecutive Australian governments failing to support harm-minimisation reforms that would help protect people from predatory gambling; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban corporate donations from the gambling industry,

(ii) introduce evidence-based harm-minimisation and product safety measures to reduce the development of problem gambling, and to assist gamblers to limit their expenditure,

(iii) phase out poker machines, and, in the meantime, implement $1 maximum bets per spin, $20 machine load-up limits, and $500 jackpot limits, and mandatory pre-commitment for pokies and sports betting, and

(iv) ban sports betting advertisements during the broadcast of sporting events and children's viewing times.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

12th Feb 2019, 5:44 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Restrict

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Qld Senator Larissa Waters, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) trust in Australian democracy has halved in the last decade, with fewer than 41% of Australian citizens reporting a sense of satisfaction with the way democracy works, down from 86% in 2007, according to research from the Museum of Australian Democracy and the University of Canberra published today,

(ii) women are generally less satisfied with democracy and more distrusting of politicians and political institutions – those most critical of the current state of our democracy are women in their forties who are struggling on less than $50,000 a year,

(iii) people most likely to feel satisfied with the status quo include those aged 55 and over, and those earning more than $200,000 a year,

(iv) the three main grievances electors have with Australia's democratic system are politicians not being accountable for broken promises; politicians not dealing with the issues that really matter; and big business having too much power,

(v) plummeting levels of trust in politics-as-usual is prompting young people to mobilise in unprecedented numbers, with thousands of schoolchildren protesting the Government's lack of long-term policies for climate justice over the last week, across all Australian capitals, and

(vi) younger voters are concerned that their vote does not count because of the overwhelming influence of political donations, which result in more and more people being denied necessary resources and basic human rights; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban corporate donations from vested interests that seek to influence government policy,

(ii) cap all other donations to political parties to $1000 per year, and

(iii) take measures to increase the participation of women and people from minority backgrounds in Australia's political system.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

12th Feb 2019 – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Restrict

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Qld Senator Larissa Waters (Greens), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the Australian Electoral Commission published figures about political donations received in the 2017-18 financial year on 1 February 2019,

(ii) that voters have the right to know which bodies are donating how much to which political party in the lead up to an election, and

(iii) that transparency in relation to electoral donations is critical to the healthy functioning of democracy; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban corporate donations from vested interests that seek to influence government policy,

(ii) cap all other donations to political parties to $1000 per year, and

(iii) implement real-time disclosure of donations to political parties.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

3rd Dec 2018, 4:53 PM – Senate Motions - Political Donations - Ban and cap

Show detail

Senator Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) on behalf of Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (South Australia, Australian Greens) moved a motion:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) a study published last week by the Drug and Alcohol Review found that, in a 10-year period, a total of $7 million was gifted to the Liberal and Labor parties by alcohol interests, $2 million by gambling businesses and $1 million from tobacco,

(ii) the study found that gambling, alcohol and tobacco industry donations peaked both before elections and during parliamentary debates about policy that directly affect their bottom line, and

(iii) this study quotes an ex-politician stating that 'If someone donates $1000, they support you. If they donate $100,000, they've bought you"; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban donations from the property development, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, defence, pharmaceutical, banking, and mining industries, and

(ii) cap all other donations to $1000 per year.

Note: this is my first attempt summarise a division so feedback is welcomed.

Note on the note: Thanks for the good work!

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

16th Oct 2018, 4:30 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Donations, climate policy and Adani

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters (Qld), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts that warming of 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels will see the death of 100 per cent of coral reefs globally, and that warming of 1.5°C will see 90 per cent of coral reefs die,

(ii) that the IPCC forecasts that warming is likely to reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels between 2030 and 2052 if it continues at the current trajectory,

(iii) the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report, released on 18 September 2018, Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs: Update to the First Global Scientific Assessment, which confirms that remaining within 1.5°C climate target is critical for survival of World Heritage-listed coral reefs,

(iv) the statement by the Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation Board during the Brisbane hearing of the inquiry into the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program, that "many reefs around the world are classified as in danger, regardless of whether UNESCO has them listed", and

(v) that 64 000 people rely on jobs supported by the Great Barrier Reef; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban corporate donations to political parties from the fossil fuel industry, an industry which financially benefits from this Government's lack of action on climate change,

(ii) get a climate policy that limits global warming to 1 degrees to protect the Great Barrier Reef and Australians from extreme weather events, and

(iii) revoke all federal approvals for the Adani Carmichael mine, and not approve any new coal in Australia.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

13th Sep 2018, 12:23 PM – Senate Motions - International Day of Democracy - Corruption and donations

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that called for, among other things, a federal anti-corruption agency to be created as well as certain political donations to be banned.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 15 September 2018 is International Day of Democracy,

(ii) Australia's democracy faces systemic challenges in the corrupting influence of political donations and the under-representation of minorities in decision-making positions, and

(iii) Australia's Parliament does not reflect the composition of the Australian population in terms of gender or cultural diversity; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban corporate donations from industries with a history of undue influence in Australia's Parliament, such as mining, development, tobacco, alcohol and gambling,

(ii) withdraw proposed electoral funding legislation that restricts the ability of civil society to advocate in the public interest,

(iii) take measures to increase the participation of women and people from minority backgrounds in Australia's political systems, and

(iv) urgently establish a national anti-corruption body with investigative powers to address parliamentary and ministerial misconduct.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

13th Feb 2018, 3:53 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Mining and resources

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) in McCloy v New South Wales (2015), the High Court found that prohibiting political donations from a certain industry was permissible if the prohibition was proportionate to the risk of actual or perceived corruption,

(ii) a 2016 report from 350.org, found that fossil fuel companies would receive $7.7 billion in rebates and credits for the 2016-17 financial year, had made $3.7 million in political donations since the preceding election, and that this equated to $2,000 in rebates and credits for every $1 donated, and

(iii) in 2016-17, the Liberal, National and Labor parties received at least $477,111 from Woodside Energy, Santos, the Minerals Council of Australia, Whitehaven Coal and Adani Mining; and

(b) calls on the Government to prohibit political donations from mineral resources or mining industry business entities and their industry representative organisations.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

15th Aug 2017, 4:06 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Integrity and perceived corruption

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion on political donations that was introduced by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia's biggest ethanol producer, Manildra, has donated over $4.1 million to political parties since 1998-99 and was granted twenty meetings with the NSW Minister before a new law on the NSW Ethanol Mandate was passed,

(ii) the Productivity Commission has recommended that the policy designed to increase ethanol use by NSW motorists should be dropped, and that the mandate that 6 per cent of all petrol sold by major retailers in NSW must be ethanol may not achieve the claimed environmental benefits,

(iii) the most recent data from the federal Department of Environment and Energy shows that the E10 program has been a massive flop in its first five months and E10's share of all petrol sold in NSW during this period fell from 24.5 per cent in 2016 to 23.9 per cent this year, and

(iv) these developments add to the perception that corporate political donations have a corrupting influence on the political process; and

(b) calls on the Government to ban donations from industries which pose a particular threat to the integrity and perceived integrity of the electoral system.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

8th Nov 2016, 3:50 PM – Senate Motions - Political Donations - Family First

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) since 2013-14, former Senator Day has donated over $500 000 and forgiven a loan of $1.47 million to Family First,

(ii) an independent auditor's report in 2013 found Home Australia Group's liabilities exceeded its assets by nearly $31 million, and

(iii) over 200 customers have been left with unfinished homes; and

(b) calls on the Family First Party to return all money received from Mr Day and his companies so that money can be used to pay creditors.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

12th Oct 2016, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Banks and financial institutions

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the National Bank of Australia has announced a voluntary ban on all political donations to avoid perceptions of impropriety or graft; and

(b) calls on all parties and members of Parliament to refuse political donations from all banks and financial institutions to avoid perceptions of impropriety or graft.

No Yes Not passed by a large 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 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 14 0 140
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 2 2 4
Total: 2 144

*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 = 2 / 144 = 1.4%.

And then