How Bruce Baird voted compared to someone who believes that the federal governmnet should increase parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators, such as legitimate expenditure, salary packages, superannuation entitlements and/or other allowances like the printing allowance

Division Bruce Baird Supporters vote Division outcome

18th Oct 2006, 5:43 PM – Representatives Motions - Motion for Disallowance - Parliamentary printing allowances

Show detail

The majority voted against disallowing Schedules 1 and 3 to the Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), which means that these Regulations would remain unchanged.

The motion was introduced by Labor MP Kelvin Thomson.

What does this motion mean?

This motion asked the House to agree to stop Schedules 1 and 3 having legal force.

Schedule 1 increases the House of Representatives' printing entitlements to $150,000 per member per year (from $125,000 per member per year). And as MP Thomson explained, it also "allows MPs to roll over up to 45 per cent, or $67½ thousand, of unspent funds from their printing entitlements into the next year’s entitlement".

Schedule 3 changes the Senate's printing entitlements, though this was not discussed in detail in the House.

Motion text

That Schedules 1 and 3 to the Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 211 and made under the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990, be disallowed.

absent No Not passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Bruce Baird was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.