How David Leyonhjelm voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation that reduces the gap in income between women and men and ensures both sexes are paid equally well

Division David Leyonhjelm Supporters vote Division outcome

20th Sep 2018, 12:33 PM – Senate Motions - Superannuation - Gender gap + low income earners

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 that women retire with around 40 per cent less superannuation than men, and supports legislative change to close this gap as quickly as possible;

(b) acknowledges that if the Gillard Government had adopted The Greens amendment to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, to ensure superannuation was paid to primary parents on leave, this gender retirement income gap would now be smaller;

(c) notes that the flat 15 per cent tax rate on superannuation contributions is regressive, with a disproportionate impact on the retirement savings for women, as they make up the majority of low income earners below the median wage; and

(d) calls on this or future governments to significantly boost the retirement balances of women by:

(i) making super contribution taxes progressive by setting them at 15 per cent below marginal tax rates, and

(ii) increasing the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset for earners below the tax-free threshold, in order to ensure all workers gain an equal tax benefit from superannuation.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest 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 David Leyonhjelm 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.