← Basic divisions list

These divisions relate to the policy “for increasing parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators”. Compare how a supporter of the policy would have voted to the division outcome.

3rd Apr 2019, 9:34 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019 - Disallowance - Division No. 14

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Conservatives (0.0% turnout)
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 9
Australian Labor Party (80% turnout) 20
Centre Alliance (100% turnout) 2
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Independent (67% turnout) 1 1
Liberal Democratic Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (74% turnout) 17
National Party (100% turnout) 3
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (0.0% turnout)
President (100% turnout) 1
United Australia Party (0.0% turnout)
Totals (79% turnout) 34 26

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by SA Senator Don Farrell (Labor), which means it passed. This motion means that item 4 will no longer have legal force.

Motion text

That item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, made under the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, be disallowed [F2019L00177].

What is item 4?

According to the explanatory statement for these regulations, item 4 "enables members to use office expenses to pay for the production of content for broadcast on television or radio."

21st Mar 2017, 4:08 PM – Senate Motions - Parliamentarians' Entitlements - Do not increase remuneration until in surplus - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “No (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Conservatives (100% turnout) 1
Australian Greens (89% turnout) 8
Australian Labor Party (76% turnout) 19
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Democratic Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (76% turnout) 16
National Party (100% turnout) 4
Nick Xenophon Team (0.0% turnout)
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (75% turnout) 3
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (79% turnout) 6 53

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Australian Conservatives Senator Cory Bernardi, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

That, given the Commonwealth's debt and Australia's budget deficit, the Senate is of the view that all senators receive an appropriate remuneration package and, therefore, the Remuneration Tribunal should not consider increasing the remuneration paid to senators until the Government has delivered a budget surplus.

14th May 2009, 10:34 AM – Senate Motions - Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Electorate allowance - Division No. 3

Supporters vote “No (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (58% turnout) 18
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (0.0% turnout)
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (53% turnout) 16
National Party (40% turnout) 2
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (59% turnout) 7 38

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.

18th Oct 2006, 5:43 PM – Representatives Motions - Motion for Disallowance - Parliamentary printing allowances - Division No. 17

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (90% turnout) 53
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (75% turnout) 3
Liberal Party (93% turnout) 68
National Party (73% turnout) 8
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (89% turnout) 56 78

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 by Labor MP Kelvin Thomson.

What does this motion mean?

This motion asked the House 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 MP Thomson explained, it also "allows MPs to roll over up to 45 per cent, or $67½ thousand, of unspent funds from their printing entitlements into the next year’s entitlement".

Schedule 3 changes the Senate's printing entitlements, though this was not discussed in detail in the House.

Motion text

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.

7th Sep 2006, 12:27 PM – Senate Motions - Motion for Disallowance - Parliamentary printing allowances - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Democrats (75% turnout) 3
Australian Greens (75% turnout) 3
Australian Labor Party (78% turnout) 21
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (81% turnout) 26
National Party (80% turnout) 4
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (79% turnout) 29 31

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.

Motion text

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.

5th Sep 2006, 6:25 PM – Senate Motions - Remuneration and Allowances - Pay rise - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “No (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Democrats (100% turnout) 4
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 4
Australian Labor Party (85% turnout) 23
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (59% turnout) 19
National Party (80% turnout) 4
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (75% turnout) 5 52

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.

Motion text

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.