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#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:19

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion "''...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed''"
  • In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”.(The Chairman's ruling can be found [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.155.1 here]. ) This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
  • In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(Read Senator Fifield's statement [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.151.1 here]. )
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved that they should be opposed.(See that motion [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.146.1 here]. ) The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.
  • Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mark_Arbib&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mark Arbib] 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”.(Read Senator Arbib's whole argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.150.1 here]. )
  • ''Background to the bills''
  • The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].)
  • References
  • The majority voted against a motion "_...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed_"
  • In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”.(The Chairman's ruling can be found [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.155.1). ) This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
  • In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(Read Senator Fifield's statement [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.151.1). )
  • _Debate in Parliament_
  • The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party Senator [Mitchell Fifield](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate) moved that they should be opposed.(See that motion [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.146.1). ) The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.
  • Labor Senator [Mark Arbib](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mark_Arbib&mpc=Senate&house=senate) 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”.(Read Senator Arbib's whole argument [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.150.1). )
  • _Background to the bills_
  • The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [bill's digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22) (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [website](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay).)
  • References
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:39

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion "''...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed''"
  • In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”.[1] This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”.(The Chairman's ruling can be found [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.155.1 here]. ) This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
  • In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.[2]
  • In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(Read Senator Fifield's statement [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.151.1 here]. )
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved that they should be opposed.[3] The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.
  • The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved that they should be opposed.(See that motion [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.146.1 here]. ) The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.
  • Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mark_Arbib&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mark Arbib] 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”.[4]
  • Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mark_Arbib&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mark Arbib] 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”.(Read Senator Arbib's whole argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.150.1 here]. )
  • ''Background to the bills''
  • The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.[5]
  • The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].)
  • References
  • * [1] The Chairman's ruling can be found [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.155.1 here].
  • * [2] Read Senator Fifield's statement [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.151.1 here].
  • * [3] See that motion [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.146.1 here].
  • * [4] Read Senator Arbib's whole argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.150.1 here].
  • * [5] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 12:00:26

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion "''...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed''"
  • In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”.[1] This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
  • In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.[2]
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved that they should be opposed.[3] The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.
  • The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved that they should be opposed.[3] The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.
  • Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mark_Arbib&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mark Arbib] 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”.[4]
  • ''Background to the bills''
  • The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.[5]
  • References
  • * [1] The Chairman's ruling can be found [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.155.1 here].
  • * [2] Read Senator Fifield's statement [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.151.1 here].
  • * [3] See that motion [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.146.1 here].
  • * [4] Read Senator Arbib's whole argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.150.1 here].
  • * [5] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].
  • * [5] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 11:59:52

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion "''...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed''"
  • In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p>
  • <p><i>"...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p>
  • <p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.</p>
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”.[1] This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0215;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">found that</a> “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.[2]
  • <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</p>
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved that they should be opposed.[3] The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.
  • <p>The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved that they should be opposed. The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield <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">said that</a> the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.</p>
  • Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mark_Arbib&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mark Arbib] 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”.[4]
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FHES%22;querytype=;rec=0">Senator Mark Arbib</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed with Senator Fifield. <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">He said</a> 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 like any other work entitlement and therefore “paid in accordance with an employer’s normal pay practices and the employees’ usual pay cycle”.
  • ''Background to the bills''
  • <p><b>More information</b></p>
  • The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.[5]
  • <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>More information about the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2FX60X6%22">here</a>. More information about the related Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4373_ems_522f4b34-f81f-4849-be43-fd81e337cb07%22">here</a>.</p>
  • References
  • * [1] The Chairman's ruling can be found [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.155.1 here].
  • * [2] Read Senator Fifield's statement [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.151.1 here].
  • * [3] See that motion [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.146.1 here].
  • * [4] Read Senator Arbib's whole argument [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-16.150.1 here].
  • * [5] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 12:10:58

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p>
  • <p><i>"...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p>
  • <p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.</p>
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0215;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">found that</a> “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</p>
  • <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • <p>The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved that they should be opposed. The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield <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">said that</a> the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FHES%22;querytype=;rec=0">Senator Mark Arbib</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed with Senator Fifield. <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">He said</a> 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><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FHES%22;querytype=;rec=0">Senator Mark Arbib</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed with Senator Fifield. <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">He said</a> 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 like any other work entitlement and therefore “paid in accordance with an employer’s normal pay practices and the employees’ usual pay cycle”.
  • <p><b>More information</b></p>
  • <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>More information about the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2FX60X6%22">here</a>. More information about the related Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4373_ems_522f4b34-f81f-4849-be43-fd81e337cb07%22">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 12:09:15

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p>
  • <p><i>"...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p>
  • <p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.</p>
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0215;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">found that</a> “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</p>
  • <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • <p>The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved that they should be opposed. The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield <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">said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.</p>
  • <p>The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved that they should be opposed. The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield <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">said that</a> the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FHES%22;querytype=;rec=0">Senator Mark Arbib</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed with Senator Fifield. <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">He said</a> 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><b>More information</b></p>
  • <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>More information about the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2FX60X6%22">here</a>. More information about the related Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4373_ems_522f4b34-f81f-4849-be43-fd81e337cb07%22">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 12:08:04

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to let certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 stand as printed. In other words, they failed to pass a motion to agree to the clauses and parts without amendment. Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p>
  • <p><i>"...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p>
  • <p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0215;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">found that</a> “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put because the Opposition (Coalition) moved a <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> to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which transfer the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The motion’s purpose was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers.</p>
  • <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</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 motion to oppose the particular clauses and parts. 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><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion then the Opposition (Coalition) would not imperil the legislation by insisting on the changes. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p>The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved that they should be opposed. The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield <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">said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.</p>
  • <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FHES%22;querytype=;rec=0">Senator Mark Arbib</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed with Senator Fifield. <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">He said</a> 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><b>More information</b></p>
  • <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>
  • <p>More information about the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2FX60X6%22">here</a>. More information about the related Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 and its context is available <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr4373_ems_522f4b34-f81f-4849-be43-fd81e337cb07%22">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:39:34

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 without amendment (that is, that they "stand as printed"). Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to let certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 stand as printed. In other words, they failed to pass a motion to agree to the clauses and parts without amendment. Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put because the Opposition (Coalition) has moved a <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> to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which transfer the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The motion’s purpose was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put because the Opposition (Coalition) moved a <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> to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which transfer the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The motion’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 motion to oppose the particular clauses and parts. 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><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion then the Opposition (Coalition) would not imperil the legislation. In other words, they would not insist on the changes. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion then the Opposition (Coalition) would not imperil the legislation by insisting on the changes. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>
  • <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>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:34:53

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>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 without amendment (that is, that they "stand as printed"). Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put because the Opposition (Coalition) has moved a <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> to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which transfer the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The motion’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 motion to oppose the particular clauses and parts. 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><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion then the Opposition (Coalition) would not imperil the legislation. In other words, they would not insist on the changes. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>
  • <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>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:34:17

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 without amendment (that is, that they "stand as printed"). Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to omit these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put as a result of an <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">amendment</a> moved by the Opposition (Coalition) to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which 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>The motion was put because the Opposition (Coalition) has moved a <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> to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which transfer the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The motion’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><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 motion to oppose the particular clauses and parts. 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><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts then the Opposition (Coalition) would not imperil the legislation. In other words, they would not insist on the changes. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion then the Opposition (Coalition) would not imperil the legislation. In other words, they would not insist on the changes. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>
  • <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>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:28:05

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 without amendment (that is, that they "stand as printed"). Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to omit these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put as a result of an <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">amendment</a> moved by the Opposition (Coalition) to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which 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><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts then the Opposition (Coalition) would not insist on it. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts then the Opposition (Coalition) would not imperil the legislation. In other words, they would not insist on the changes. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>
  • <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>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:25:56

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 without amendment. Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 without amendment (that is, that they "stand as printed"). Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to omit these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put as a result of an <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">amendment</a> moved by the Opposition (Coalition) to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which 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><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts then the Opposition (Coalition) would not insist on it. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>
  • <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>
senate vote 2010-06-16#5

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 08:25:01

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

Description

  • <p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN The question now is that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 stand as printed.</p>
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree to certain clauses and parts of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 without amendment. Those clauses and parts were subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5.</p>
  • <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No voters and so the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”. This means that an amendment to omit these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p>
  • <p>The motion was put as a result of an <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">amendment</a> moved by the Opposition (Coalition) to oppose those particular clauses and parts, which 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><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0211;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-16%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the Opposition amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed motion to oppose the relevant clauses and parts then the Opposition (Coalition) would not insist on it. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p>
  • <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>
  • <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>