How Nick McKim 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 Nick McKim Supporters vote Division outcome

23rd Jun 2021, 4:14 PM – Senate Motions - Discrimination - Against affirmative action

Show detail

A large majority of senators voted against a motion introduced by Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) Investigation Arista by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) found that:

(A) the Queensland Police Service (QPS) engaged in 'corrupt manipulation' and 'discriminatory' practices to achieve a 50% female hiring target,

(B) the discriminatory practices saw different standards applied to female and male applicants, with females selected in preference to the male applicants who had performed to a higher standard across entry assessments,

(C) some female applicants were approved for entry despite failing the cognitive, physical, or psychological assessment, and

(D) if the discriminatory practices had not been implemented, the CCC estimates 200 more meritorious male applicants who had passed the assessments would have been successful in joining the QPS, and

(ii) the use of discriminatory recruitment practices devalues the achievements of both females and males who achieve the required application standards; and

(b) further notes that:

(i) policies that discriminate based on gender are sexist,

(ii) policies that discriminate based on race are racist, and

(iii) judgements should only be made based on the merit of the individual and not other characteristics.

No No Not passed by a large majority

8th Dec 2020, 4:53 PM – Senate Motions - Women's Economic Security - Retirement incomes

Show detail

The same number of senators vote for and against a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Catryna Bilyk (Labor), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on average, women retire with superannuation balances 50% lower than those of men,

(ii) 40% of older single retired women live in poverty and experience economic insecurity in retirement,

(iii) an estimated 220,000 women miss out on a combined $125 million of superannuation contributions as they do not meet the requirement to earn $450 per month from one employer, and

(iv) the Government deliberately excluded consideration of systemic problems in the superannuation system for women from the terms of reference of its retirement incomes review, despite 100 prominent Australians in senior business roles writing to the Treasurer and calling on him to do so; and

(b) calls on the Morrison Government to help women achieve equality in retirement by responding to the inequality raised in the retirement incomes review's final report and look at the systemic issues that lead to inequality between men's and women's retirement incomes.

Yes Yes Not passed

26th Aug 2020, 4:02 PM – Senate Motions - Superannuation - Inequality

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Tasmanian Senator Helen Polley (Labor), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate notes that—

(a) COVID-19 and the associated recession should not be used to justify changes to the scheduled superannuation payment increase from 9.5% to 12% by July 2025 – too many people retire with insufficient retirement savings, and data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not show that an increase in superannuation leads to a decrease in wages;

(b) with superannuation withdrawals at $32 billion, and predictions that this will reach $42 billion by the end of the year, Australians will regard this temporary measure that is allowing early access to super as careless policy management and a complete lack of foresight;

(c) there have already been 560,000 Australians who have completely cleared out their retirement savings, with 82% of these people under the age of 35 – young people will already fare worse following this pandemic and this has aggravated the problem;

(d) females are already worse off, with women retiring with approximately 47% less super than men – this is due to higher levels of part-time and casual work and repeated career breaks; and

(e) there also needs to be a more targeted approach to reducing inequalities females face, and prevent them from retiring in poverty.

Yes Yes Not passed by a small majority

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.

Yes Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted very strongly for" is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes Points Out of
Most important votes (50 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 4 40 40
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 40 40

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 40 / 40 = 100%.

And then