How John Madigan 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 John Madigan Supporters vote Division outcome

2nd May 2016, 4:20 PM – Senate Motions — Donations to Political Parties

Show detail

The majority of Senators disagreed with Senator Lee Rhiannon's motion:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) there is strong evidence that Leighton Holdings paid millions of dollars to Unaoil in 2010 and 2011, and was involved in serious corruption in Iraq,

(ii) since 2010, Leighton Holdings has donated at least $143,000 to the federal Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party,

(iii) in 2014-15 the property industry donated $1.8 million to the Liberal Party of Australia and $591,167 to the Australian Labor Party,

(iv) in 2014-15, Westpac, ANZ, NAB, the Commonwealth Bank and the Macquarie Group donated $1,057,361 to the major parties, and

(v) in 2013-14, Brickworks provided $263,000 in donations to the Liberal Party and offered in-kind campaign support to the federal Liberal Party to repeal the carbon price;

(b) the High Court of Australia Justices Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Chief Justice French stated in McCloy v NSW that reliance by political candidates on private patronage may, over time become so necessary as to sap the vitality as well as the integrity of the political branches of government; and

(c) calls on the Government to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to ban donations from property developers, tobacco industry business entities, liquor business entities, gambling industry business entities, mineral resources or mining industry business entities, and industry lobby groups who represent these entities.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

19th Apr 2016, 7:39 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - End fossil fuel political donations

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. The motion called on all political parties to ban and refuse to accept fossil fuel donations.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the unprecedented coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority describes as the worst ever mass bleaching event,

(ii) the devastating bushfires affecting areas of Tasmania's Wilderness World Heritage Area which have not been burned in centuries and which may never recover,

(iii) the fact that 2014 and 2015 were both the hottest year on record, and that the United Kingdom Meteorological Office predicts that 2016 will also be the hottest year on record,

(iv) that ordinary Australians are leading the way in calling for action on global warming, in particular, the students at the University of Queensland who have occupied the Chancellery Building calling on the University to divest from fossil fuels, and

(v) that fossil fuel companies have made $3.7 million in political donations to the Coalition and the Australian Labor Party since the 2013 election; and

(b) calls on all political parties to:

(i) support a legislative ban on fossil fuel donations, and

(ii) refuse to accept any more fossil fuel donations.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

24th Nov 2015, 3:51 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Ban certain political donations & establish independent corruption commission

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, which means that it failed.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) former Newcastle Lord Mayor and developer, Mr Jeff McCloy, lost his High Court case to overturn a New South Wales law banning developers from making political donations,

(ii) in its finding on the case, the High Court identified a more subtle kind of corruption known as clientelism, which is where officeholders will decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder,

(iii) the High Court also stated that the particular concern is that reliance by political candidates on private patronage may, over time, become so necessary as to sap the vitality, as well as the integrity, of the political branches of government, and

(iv) in dealing with solutions, the High Court found that, unlike straight cash-for-votes transactions, such corruption is neither easily detected nor practical to criminalise, and the best means of prevention is to identify and to remove the temptation; and

(b) calls on the Government:

(i) to ban political donations to parties and candidates from for-profit corporations, and

(ii) to establish an independent agency, similar to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, which works to expose corruption and enhance integrity at the federal level.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

19th Mar 2015, 11:28 AM – Senate Motions — Ban donations to political parties from mining and coal seam gas (CSG) companies

Show detail

Senator Lee Rhiannon moved:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  • (i) the New South Wales Labor Party recently received a political donation from coal seam gas company Santos Ltd,

  • (ii) the New South Wales Labor Party subsequent to taking the donation, returned $2 200 to Santos Ltd acknowledging this money would cause community doubt that Labor was committed to a coal seam gas free north coast,

  • (iii) in the recent New South Wales leaders' debate the Labor leader, Mr Luke Foley, failed to rule out coal seam gas development if Labor formed government with his statement that there is a role for gas in the state's energy future, and

  • (iv) the Federal Labor Party received more than $90 000 from Santos Ltd in the 2012 13 and 2013 14 financial years; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

  • (i) ban political donations from mining and coal seam gas companies, and

  • (ii) end coal seam gas and coal mining on agricultural land and associated water resources.

No Yes Not passed by a modest 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 4 0 40
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 1 42

*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 = 1 / 42 = 2.4%.

And then