How Gavin Marshall voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should get rid of the Gold Travel Pass, which gives free domestic air travel to certain former politicians, such as former Prime Ministers

Division Gavin Marshall Supporters vote Division outcome

16th Feb 2017, 7:10 PM – Senate Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Gold Pass travel entitlement

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Senator Pauline Hanson (Qld), which means they were unsuccessful.

What were the amendments?

Senator Hanson explained that:

... at present we still have five former prime ministers on the taxpayer payroll. I am moving amendments here to address the gold leaf that they and their spouses have for their travel...

... I believe that if we are going to ask the people of Australia to pull their belts in and we are going to take money out of their pockets or pull back on essential services for them then we as leaders of this nation should show by example.

absent Yes Not passed by a large majority

16th Feb 2017, 6:43 PM – Senate Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Prime ministers

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Australian Conservatives Senator Cory Bernardi (SA).

While the rest of the Liberal Party voted against the motion, Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald rebelled against his party and voted Yes.

This motion would limit the prime minister entitlements included in the Act to prime ministers who have been in the position for at least four consecutive years, which would exclude our three most recent former prime ministers: Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

Motion text

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 23), after the definition of Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement, insert:

Prime Minister: see section 4AB.

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (after line 5), after section 4AA, insert:

4AB Prime Ministers

For the purposes of this Act, a member is only taken to be the Prime Minister if the member has been the Prime Minister for a period of at least 4 consecutive years.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

16th Feb 2017, 6:18 PM – Senate Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Former PMs and the gold pass

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to keep item 11 of schedule 1 unchanged after Australian Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW) moved that it should be rejected.

What was item 11?

Item 11 states that the Life Gold Pass, a post-retirement travel entitlement, will be closed to new members except for former prime ministers.

Wording of item 11

11 Before subsection 4A(1)

Insert:

(1A) Nothing in this section prevents a former member who has been the Prime Minister from becoming a holder of a Parliamentary Retirement Travel Entitlement.

absent No Passed by a modest majority

16th Feb 2017, 5:48 PM – Senate Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Get rid of gold pass

Show detail

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Australian Greens Lee Rhiannon (NSW), which means it was unsuccessful.

There was one rebel voter: Liberal Party Senator Ian Macdonald (Qld). He voted Yes against the majority of the Liberal Party, alongside former Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi (SA), who now belongs to the Australian Conservatives Party.

What were the amendments?

The purpose of the amendments was to completely get rid of the gold pass, a post-retirement travel benefit. For example, "[f]rom 1 July 2012, a Life Gold Pass holder is entitled, in a financial year, to a maximum of 10 domestic return trips".

Amendment text

See OpenAustralia for the motion text.

absent Yes (strong) 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 Gavin Marshall 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.