Division Description Changes — Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — In Committee — 16th Jun 2010

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2010-06-16#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:17	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p> The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks. The amendment was introduced by Greens Party [Senator Sarah Hanson-Young](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme. [Senator Chris Evans](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”. Liberal Party [Senator Mitchell Fifield](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22) acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”. The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found [here](http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf) [1.7MB].
senate vote 2010-06-16#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 10:40:20	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p> <p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-16#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-18 08:56:01	Title ~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee~~ Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Extend scheme to 26 weeks Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p> <p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-16#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-18 08:55:25	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p> <p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-16#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-18 08:53:56	Title ~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — In Committee~~ Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee Description <p pwmotiontext="moved">That is not correct. You can only obtain one or the other.</p><p pwmotiontext="moved">That would be up to the medical practitioner.</p><p pwmotiontext="moved">That would be up to the medical practitioner.</p> ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:</p>~~ ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:</p>~~ <p pwmotiontext="moved">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:<dl><dt>(3)</dt><dd>Clause 7, page 19 (lines 23 to 27), omit “18”, substitute “26” (thrice occurring).</dd><dt>(4)</dt><dd>Clause 11, page 22 (line 30), omit “125 days”, substitute “181 days”.</dd><dt>(5)</dt><dd>Clause 11, page 22 (line 31), omit “18 weeks”, substitute “26 weeks”.</dd></dl> ~~<b>Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</b>~~ ~~<b>Amendments (3), (4) and (5)</b>~~ The effect of amendments (4) and (5) would be to extend the duration of the entitlement to parental leave pay, resulting in additional amounts being paid. The increased expenditure would be met from the standing appropriation in clause 307 of the bill.Amendments (4) and (5) are therefore presented as requests.Amendment (3) is a consequential amendment and is therefore also presented as a request. ~~<b>Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</b>~~ The Senate has long accepted that an amendment should take the form of a request if it would have the effect of increasing expenditure under an appropriation clause in a bill.On the basis that amendments (4), (5) and (10) would result in increased expenditure under the appropriation in the bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.</p> <p pwmotiontext="moved">That the requests (<b>Senator Hanson-Young’s</b>) be agreed to.</p> <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.</p> <p>The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p> <p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p>

Change

Division

senate vote 2010-06-16#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:17

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.
The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.
The amendment was introduced by Greens Party [Senator Sarah Hanson-Young](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.
[Senator Chris Evans](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.
Liberal Party [Senator Mitchell Fifield](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22) acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found [here](http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf) [1.7MB].

senate vote 2010-06-16#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 10:40:20

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.
The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.

senate vote 2010-06-16#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:56:01

Title

~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee~~
Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Extend scheme to 26 weeks

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.
The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.

senate vote 2010-06-16#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:55:25

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.
The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendment. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.

senate vote 2010-06-16#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:53:56

Title

~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — In Committee~~
Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee

Description

That is not correct. You can only obtain one or the other.That would be up to the medical practitioner.That would be up to the medical practitioner.
~~That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:~~
~~That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:~~
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:<dl><dt>(3)</dt><dd>Clause 7, page 19 (lines 23 to 27), omit “18”, substitute “26” (thrice occurring).</dd><dt>(4)</dt><dd>Clause 11, page 22 (line 30), omit “125 days”, substitute “181 days”.</dd><dt>(5)</dt><dd>Clause 11, page 22 (line 31), omit “18 weeks”, substitute “26 weeks”.</dd></dl>
~~Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000~~
~~Amendments (3), (4) and (5)~~
The effect of amendments (4) and (5) would be to extend the duration of the entitlement to parental leave pay, resulting in additional amounts being paid. The increased expenditure would be met from the standing appropriation in clause 307 of the bill.Amendments (4) and (5) are therefore presented as requests.Amendment (3) is a consequential amendment and is therefore also presented as a request.
~~Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000~~
The Senate has long accepted that an amendment should take the form of a request if it would have the effect of increasing expenditure under an appropriation clause in a bill.On the basis that amendments (4), (5) and (10) would result in increased expenditure under the appropriation in the bill, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.
That the requests (Senator Hanson-Young’s) be agreed to.
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to making a request that the House of Representatives amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 to extend the paid parental leave scheme from 18 weeks to 26 weeks.
The amendment was introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that 26 weeks (six months) is a “bare minimum” and used examples from paid parental leave schemes in Sweden, New Zealand, Finland and the UK to demonstrate this. The Senator also noted that the Coalition Opposition supported a six month scheme.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0060;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Chris Evans</a>, speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He argued that such an extension would more than double the cost of the scheme. However, he also acknowledged that the scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, along with the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, was “a foundational proposal”.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> acknowledged that Senator Hanson-Young was correct in saying that 26 weeks is the Coalition Opposition’s policy. However, he said that the Coalition Opposition would not be supporting this motion because “we do not have the numbers in the House of Representatives” and that while the Labor Government’s scheme is inadequate, “it is a step in the right direction”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its policy that the scheme should be 26 weeks long. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that both the Labor Government and Coalition Opposition voted “No” and both support paid parental leave schemes. This is because the amendments arguably increase the benefits attached to paid parental leave and are therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.