|
senate vote 2010-06-16#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-09-18 07:59:16
|
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 - Administration of Payment
Description
<p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R4347">Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010</a></p><p>Consideration resumed.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5), (7), (10), (11), and (15) to (20) on sheet 6134:</p><p class="italic">(1)    Clause 63, page 62 (lines 3 to 8), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute:</p><p class="italic">        (1)    Parental leave pay must be paid to a person by the Secretary in instalments.</p><p class="italic">(2)    Clause 64, page 62 (line 16) to page 63 (line 18), omit the clause, substitute:</p><p>64  A person’s <i>instalment period</i> and the <i>payday</i> for an instalment</p><p class="italic">        (1)    A person’s <b><i>instalment period</i></b> is the period of 14 days starting on a day the Secretary considers appropriate for the person (or a class of person in which the person is included) and each successive 14 day period</p><p>Note:   Sections 93 and 94 affect when an instalment period for a person starts and ends in certain circumstances.</p><p class="italic">        (2)    The <b><i>payday</i></b> for the instalment is a day that the Secretary considers appropriate that occurs after the instalment period to which the instalment relates.</p><p class="italic">(3)    Clause 67, page 64 (line 22), omit “An employer or the Secretary”, substitute “The Secretary”.</p><p class="italic">(4)    Clause 67, page 64 (lines 26 to 31), omit the note.</p><p class="italic">(5)    Clause 68, page 65 (line 13), omit “An employer or the Secretary”, substitute “The Secretary”.</p><p class="italic">(7)    Clause 69, page 65 (line 22), omit “(2)”.</p><p class="italic">(10)  Clause 83, page 76 (lines 3 to 16), omit the clause, substitute:</p><p>83  Guide to this Part</p><p class="italic">This Part is about the payment of instalments to a person by the Secretary.</p><p class="italic">The Secretary is required to pay instalments directly to a person on the payday for the instalment.</p><p class="italic">In certain circumstances where the Secretary becomes required to pay instalments to a person, the Secretary is also required to pay the person arrears for instalments that had previously become payable, but not been paid, to the person.</p><p class="italic">(11)  Clause 84, page 77 (line 2) to page 78 (line 26), omit the clause, substitute:</p><p>84  When the Secretary pays instalments</p><p class="italic">                 The Secretary must pay an instalment that is payable to a person on the payday for the instalment.</p><p class="italic">(15)  Clause 117, page 103 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (c).</p><p class="italic">(16)  Clause 117, page 103 (line 19), omit “;”, substitute “.”.</p><p class="italic">(17)  Clause 117, page 103 (lines 20 to 25), omit paragraphs (e) to (g).</p><p class="italic">(18)  Heading to clause 133, page 112 (lines 3 and 4), omit “<b>or PPL funding amount</b>”.</p><p class="italic">(19)  Clause 133, page 112 (lines 8 to 15), omit paragraph(1)(b), substitute:</p><p class="italic">             (b)    order the person to pay the Commonwealth an amount equal to any amount paid to, or in relation to, the person by way of an instalment of parental leave pay because of the act, failure or omission that constituted the offence.</p><p class="italic">(20)  Clause 138, page 113 (lines 21 and 22), omit “or a PPL funding amount”.</p><p>The opposition will be opposing clause 69, clause 70, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94, and part 3-5 in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(6)    Clause 69, page 65 (lines 18 to 21), subclause (1) <b>TO BE OPPOSED</b>.</p><p class="italic">(8)    Clause 70, page 66 (lines 5 and 6), subclause (2) and the note <b>TO BE OPPOSED</b>.</p><p class="italic">(9)    Part 3-2, page 67 (line 1) to page 75 (line 9), <b>TO BE OPPOSED</b>.</p><p class="italic">(12)  Clauses 85 and 86, page 78 (line 27) to page 80 (line 12), <b>TO BE OPPOSED</b>.</p><p class="italic">(13)  Clauses 93 and 94, page 84 (line 1) to page 85 (line 1), <b>TO BE OPPOSED</b>.</p><p class="italic">(14)  Part 3-5, page 87 (line 1) to page 101 (line 8), <b>TO BE OPPOSED</b>.</p><p>In moving these amendments, the opposition are not in any way seeking to impede the passage or introduction of the government scheme. As we have flagged in the second reading debate, the opposition are concerned that the government is seeking to give business in effect the role of being the PPL paymaster. We are therefore seeking these substantive amendments to extend the role of the Family Assistance Office in administering the Paid Parental Leave scheme indefinitely. This measure would make ongoing use of the taxpayer investment in the establishment of the necessary payment and operating systems beyond the initial six months. We urge the government to embrace the coalition’s amendments in order to avoid the imposition of unnecessary and unjustified cost, additional regulatory burden and the compliance risks to the small business community.</p><p>I think anyone who has been watching the debate in this chamber about the PPL legislation would be well aware that the opposition have been very responsible in the approach we have taken to amendments that have been put forward. Where amendments have been put forward which may have given effect to part of the coalition’s own policy but where it is clear that there was no prospect of the government agreeing with such amendments in the House, we have not supported those amendments. We have been at pains to do everything we possibly can to facilitate the passage of this legislation. However, the Senate, and the opposition in particular, has an important role to scrutinise legislation, and where we see what we feel to be a genuine problem that can easily and readily be addressed then we think it is the responsible and appropriate thing to move an amendment to that effect. It is the opposition’s hope that the government will seriously consider the amendments we are putting forward.</p><p>In moving these amendments I want to acknowledge the ceaseless advocacy in this area—that being the impact of the government’s legislation on business—of Mr Billson, the shadow minister for small business, and Senator Boswell, who is also a ceaseless advocate in this place for small business. We genuinely hope that the government will consider these amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Fielding</p><p>I was hoping a quorum would have been called as a common courtesy. These amendments are similar to the amendments Family First put to this chamber. This is all about making sure that small businesses and businesses are not inconvenienced. The Family Assistance Office is already involved in handling paid parental leave payments for people who have worked fewer than 12 months in one business. They are already handling it, they are already taking care of it, and they are already doing this sort of stuff, so why would you duplicate and have another set of people worrying about how to make these payments? The Family Assistance Office is already going to have to do it for some. I think it is unnecessary red tape that will be placed on businesses, especially small businesses. These amendments obviously make sense and, seeing as they are Family First amendments, and the opposition’s ones are similar to ours, I am hoping common sense prevails. These amendments make sure that the Family Assistance Office is doing the hard work and not leaving the burden and red tape to small businesses. I think it is an impost that we can certainly do without placing on them. The Family Assistance Office is the right place for it to take place in.</p> <p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p><p>Senator Fifield, can I just reaffirm with you that, in moving amendments (1) to (5), (7), (10), (11), and (15) to (20) on sheet 6134 together and moving to oppose the clauses and subclauses you indicated in (6), (8), (9) and (12) to (14) on sheet 6134, we will need to split the question in terms of making sure they stand as printed?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Yes. I appreciate that. I was just flagging that that would be needed.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Arbib</p><p>I thank Senator Fifield and Senator Fielding for their contributions. Unfortunately the government does not support removing employer involvement in the Paid Parental Leave scheme. We want to ensure that women maintain a strong connection with the workforce by receiving their government funded parental leave pay through their employer, as they would receive any other work entitlement. Only nine per cent of all businesses will be involved in Paid Parental Leave in any given year and only three per cent of small businesses. To help employers prepare for the scheme, the role of employers in providing government funded parental leave pay will be phased in over the first six months to align with the new financial year. Parental leave pay will be paid in accordance with an employer’s normal pay practices and the employees’ usual pay cycle. The design of the government scheme as recommended by the Productivity Commission sends a strong message that taking leave from work around the time of a birth is a normal part of work and family life.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>It is disappointing that the government did not take a moment, even, to consider the opposition’s amendments. The opposition is serious about these amendments and about the need for them, but in supporting our amendments I want to indicate that we will not be seeking to imperil the legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p><p> The question is that amendments (1) to (5), (7), (10), (11), and (15) to (20) on sheet 6134 be agreed to.</p> - <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010.</p>
- <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0206;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">motion</a> was introduced by the Opposition (Coalition) and would have amended the parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that transfer the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The amendment’s purpose was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers.</p>
- <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0210;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mark Arbib</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed with the amendments. He said that the paid parental leave scheme is based on a design recommended by the Productivity Commission and argued that paid parental leave should be treated as any other work entitlement and therefore “paid in accordance with an employer’s normal pay practices and the employees’ usual pay cycle”.
- <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, they have maintained their position that payments should be administered by government rather than by the employer. 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 listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p>
|