How Louise Pratt voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase transparency requirements for political parties (for example, requiring full and prompt disclosure of any political donations on easy-to-search public websites)

Division Louise Pratt Supporters vote Division outcome

24th Feb 2020, 4:11 PM – Senate Motions - Parliament - Transparency

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) former Liberal Opposition Leader, Dr John Hewson, in an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 February 2020, called on all political parties to fix weaknesses in the parliamentary system, rather than seeking to exploit them, and

(ii) Dr Hewson identified a 6 point plan to clean up politics:

(A) public funding for election campaigns and limits on campaign spending,

(B) transparency around lobbying, including real-time disclosure of all ministerial meetings,

(C) truth in advertising legislation,

(D) introduce penalties for false, deceptive, and misleading conduct by parliamentarians,

(E) independent standards for candidates, and

(F) a fully funded Independent Commission Against Corruption to oversee all activities of our politicians, bureaucrats and federal government, with the capacity to receive anonymous references; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to listen to their former leader and take action to implement Dr Hewson's plan.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

12th Nov 2018, 3:49 PM – Senate Motions - Political Donations - Increase disclosure requirements

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters (QLD), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own, but can be politically influential as they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) disclosure of donations made to political parties is only made public by the Australian Electoral Commission once a year, on 1 February, for the preceding financial year,

(ii) there is up to an 18 month delay between when a donation is made and when it is publicly disclosed, and at minimum a 7 month delay,

(iii) since 2012, the major parties have received approximately $100 million in donations from corporate entities,

(iv) the voters in the electorates of Braddon, Fremantle, Longman, Mayo and Perth will have to wait until 1 February 2020, some 18 months after the by-election date, before they know who funded those campaigns,

(v) the voters in the electorate of Wentworth will have to wait almost 16 months before they know who funded political parties' by-election campaigns, and

(vi) under current legislation for federal elections, voters go to the ballot box without any information about how their local candidates and political parties have funded their campaigns – the identity of donors or amounts donated; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to require all donations of $1000 and above to be disclosed in close to real-time on an easy-to-search public website, to ensure voters have access to information about who is bank-rolling political campaigns before they vote.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

16th Aug 2018, 12:06 PM – Senate Motions - Donations to Political Parties - Disclosure

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Richard Di Natale (Vic), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate:

(a) notes:

(i) the growing prominence of business events that enable direct and private access to senior members of Parliament, such as the Australian Labor Party's Business Observer Summit, the Liberal Party's Millennium Forum and The National's National Policy Forum, and

(ii) the failure of Australia's political donation laws to require the disclosure of payments for these events because there is contractual consideration, they are therefore not classified as a 'gift' under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that would mandate public disclosure;

(b) acknowledges that political donations enable access and influence policy decisions made by political parties and that these events are shrouded in secrecy; and

(c) resolves that, in the interest of good government, political parties should voluntarily disclose the attendees of these events and the amount of money provided by these businesses to political parties during these events.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted moderately 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 1 50 50
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 1 10 10
MP voted against policy 3 0 30
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 60 90

*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 = 60 / 90 = 67%.

And then