The majority voted against a motion "That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect here. )
Debate in Parliament
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator Mitchell Fifield moved an amendment that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation here. See the other relevant divisions here and here. )
Background to the bills
The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the bill's digest (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services website.)