How Peter Georgiou voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should create a national integrity commission similar to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to detect, investigate and prevent corruption across all Commonwealth departments and agencies

Division Peter Georgiou Supporters vote Division outcome

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.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

11th Sep 2018, 3:46 PM – Senate Motions - National Independent Commission Against Corruption - Create

Show detail

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

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) recognises:

(i) the notion that the Federal Government is less prone to corruption than its counterparts is not supported by evidence,

(ii) that the potential risks for corruption at a national level have increased significantly in recent years due to several factors including, but not limited to, increased government control of information, increased funding needs of political campaigns and the growth of the lobbying industry,

(iii) that these risks are not currently being adequately mitigated through offence provisions, public sector standards or supervision by various regulatory bodies, and

(iv) that, in the most recent Corruption Perceptions Index, Australia was ranked 13th out of 168 countries;

(b) notes that:

(i) a national independent commission against corruption should be established,

(ii) this independent commission should be called the National Independent Commission Against Corruption (NICAC), and

(iii) NICAC should follow the recommendations of Griffith University, namely, that the national commission act as a peak body through which all Commonwealth integrity and corruption complaints can be lodged; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to begin the implementation of NICAC as soon as possible, so that all Australians can have confidence in the integrity of their Parliament, government and public institutions.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

15th Aug 2017, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Federal Anti-Corruption Commission - Create immediately

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion "That the Senate supports the immediate creation of a Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption (Federal ICAC)", which means the motion failed. It was introduced by Greens Leader Richard Di Natale.

No Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted moderately 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 1 25 50
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* 1 1 2
Total: 26 102

*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 = 26 / 102 = 25%.

And then