How Peter Georgiou voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should tighten the ministerial code of conduct to stop former ministers from taking up lobbying positions - including in-house positions - within five years of leaving Parliament

Division Peter Georgiou Supporters vote Division outcome

19th Sep 2018, 3:58 PM – Senate Motions - Lobbying to Political Parties - Change definition of "lobbyist"

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) reports in the media that not a single lobbyist has been punished for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct (Code) in the past five years,

(ii) that in 2016, Mr Ian Macfarlane, 6 months after retiring as the Abbott Government Minister for Energy and Resources, took up the chief executive position at the Queensland Resources Council, advocating for the commercial interests of the very industry he was in charge of regulating only months before, and

(iii) that Mr Macfarlane is not classified by the Code as a lobbyist because he is employed directly as an in-house lobbyist by an industry peak body; and

(b) calls on the Government to update the definition of a lobbyist to ensure that in-house lobbyists for industry and industry peak bodies, such as Mr Macfarlane, are captured by the regulation of the Code.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

19th Sep 2018, 3:54 PM – Senate Motions - Lobbying to Political Parties - Change definition of "lobbyist"

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) reports in the media that not a single lobbyist has been punished for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct (Code) in the past five years,

(ii) that in October 2013, newly retired Labor Government Minister for Energy and Resources, Mr Martin Ferguson, took up a position at the peak body for the oil and gas industry, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, advocating for the commercial interests of very industry he was in charge of regulating only months before, and

(iii) that Mr Ferguson is not classified by the Code as a lobbyist because he is employed directly as an in-house lobbyist by an industry peak body; and

(b) calls on the Government to update the definition of a lobbyist to ensure that in-house lobbyists for industry and industry peak bodies, such as Mr Ferguson, are captured by the regulation of the Code.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

18th Sep 2018, 4:58 PM – Senate Motions - Ministerial Conduct - Tighten

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 on 17th September 2018, the Guardian Australia launched a series of damning articles about the practices of lobbyists in the Australian Parliament,

(ii) that the article states that "Big business is gaining almost unfettered access to the corridors of Australia's Parliament owing to an oversight regime that is weak, unenforced, opaque and unable to keep track of the revolving door between lobbying and government", and

(iii) high profile cases such as former Resources Minister Mr Ian MacFarlane taking up a job as head of the Queensland Resources Council almost immediately after quitting politics and, Mr Bruce Billson, former Minister for Small Business, being employed by the Franchise Council of Australia (FCA) in March 2016, before actually leaving the Parliament; and

(b) calls on the government to

(i) urgently tighten the ministerial code of conduct to preclude ministers from taking up jobs as lobbyists within 5 years of leaving Parliament, and

(ii) ensure that meaningful penalties are put in place for former ministers who breach the code of conduct.

No Yes (strong) 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 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 2 2 4
Total: 2 54

*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 / 54 = 3.7%.

And then