How Sue Boyce 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 Sue Boyce Supporters vote Division outcome

14th May 2009, 10:34 AM – Senate Motions - Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Electorate allowance

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion that opposed the rise in electorate allowance.

Senator Bob Brown introduced the motion and explained:

This motion is to disallow the regulation by which the members of parliament would get an extra $4,900 a year, or $90 a week, in electorate allowance.

He argued that this was a particularly bad time for an increase to the allowance due to the recession.

Motion text

That Part 3 (clauses 3.1 to 3.3) of Determination 2009/04: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office; and Members of Parliament – Entitlements and Office Holders Additional Salary, made pursuant to subsections 7(1), 7(3) and 7(4) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, be disapproved.

absent No (strong) 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 Sue Boyce 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.