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
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 jointly by Labor Senator Chris Evans, Greens Senator Bob Brown and Australian Democrats Senator Andrew Murray.
What does this motion mean?
This motion asked the Senate 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 Senator Evans explained, "it also introduces a provision that allows the member to roll over 45 per cent of their unused entitlement from one year into the following year".
Schedule 3 changes the Senate's printing entitlements. Senator Evans explained that "[t]he new arrangements move from a cap on the reams of paper and printing via the Senate printing office, which senators have access to, to a universal cap of $20,000 per annum for all printing requirements." Labor Senator Kim Carr discused the changes in more detail and the new limits it puts on senators' capacity to print.
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.
Not passed by a small majority
The majority voted against disapproving clause 2.2 of a determination made by the Remunerations Tribunal.
The explanatory memorandum for this determination explained that:
Clause 2.2 ... reflect[s] the outcomes of the Remuneration Tribunal’s annual review of remuneration ... [T]he upper end of the bands for both superannuation salary and total remuneration have been increased by 4.4 per cent (rounded up).
So this motion was against the 4.4% pay rise for public office holders and Members of Parliament, but the majority disagreed and the motion was unsuccessful.
What does this mean?
Greens Senator Bob Brown introduced the motion and explained:
The Remuneration Tribunal has made two determinations on pay rises. The first was No. 9, which was made on 23 May and was for a 2.5 per cent rise for MPs, and the second was made on 20 June and was for a 4.4 per cent rise. These came into effect on 1 July because of the government’s motion and were effectively retrospective. This motion of disallowance is dealing with that 4.4 per cent rise, the second rise, and would, if successful, leave MPs with the 2.5 per cent increase.
Effectively what the government announced was a seven per cent pay rise. The latest pay increases would put the Prime Minister’s salary up by more than $20,000 to about $309,000, and the Leader of the Opposition’s salary would go up by $14,000 to about $220,000.
That clause 2.2 of Determination 2006/11: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office and Members of Parliament, made pursuant to subsections 5(2A), 7(1), 7(3), 7(3D) and 7(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, be disapproved.
Not passed by a large 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
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.