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#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:18	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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments.</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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;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 relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation. This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments. 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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”. [Senator Chris Evans](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme. Liberal Party [Senator Mitchell Fifield](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22) said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”. The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 10:41:20	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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments.</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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;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 relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-18 08:51:12	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 - Superannuation Description <p pwmotiontext="moved">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:<dl><dt>(8)</dt><dd>Heading to Chapter 3, page 61 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add “<b>and superannuation</b>”.</dd><dt>(9)</dt><dd>Clause 62, page 61 (at the end of line 10), after “(see Part 3-3).”, insert “Instalments are treated as salary or wages for superannuation purposes (see Part 3-6).”.(10   Page 101 (after line 8), at the end of Chapter 3, add:</dd><dt>(10 Page 101 (after line 8)</dt><dd>, at the end of Chapter 3, add:</dd></dl></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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments.</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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;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 relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme.</p> <p>Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:18

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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation.
This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments.
 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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;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 relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation.
This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments.
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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”.
[Senator Chris Evans](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22), speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme.
Liberal Party [Senator Mitchell Fifield](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22) said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 10:41:20

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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation.
This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments.
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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;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 relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:51:12

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 - Superannuation

Description

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:<dl><dt>(8)</dt><dd>Heading to Chapter 3, page 61 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add “and superannuation”.</dd><dt>(9)</dt><dd>Clause 62, page 61 (at the end of line 10), after “(see Part 3-3).”, insert “Instalments are treated as salary or wages for superannuation purposes (see Part 3-6).”.(10   Page 101 (after line 8), at the end of Chapter 3, add:</dd><dt>(10 Page 101 (after line 8)</dt><dd>, at the end of Chapter 3, add:</dd></dl>
~~That the requests (<b>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 introduce an entitlement to superannuation.
This means that the majority of senators have rejected the amendments.
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%2F0071;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that the amendments were necessary to address “the gap in retirement savings between men and women”.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0072;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 relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that superannuation contributions under the scheme should be delayed until after a review of the scheme.
Liberal Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0073;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> said that the Coalition Opposition appreciated and was sympathetic towards the amendments’ objective but would not be supporting them because “there is no realistic prospect of the government accepting such amendments in the House”. Senator Fifield argued that although the Labor Government’s scheme was “not perfect, it is a step in the right direction and we do not want to thwart that”.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition’s proposed scheme includes superannuation contributions. 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”.