Division Description Changes — Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — In Committee — 17th Jun 2010

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2010-06-17#3 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:19	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.</p> <p>The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the <i>Fair Work Act</i>, such as the return to work guarantee.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the <i>Fair Work Act</i> at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the _Fair Work Act 2009_ to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave. This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments. The amendments were introduced by Greens Party [Senator Sarah Hanson-Young](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22), who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the _Fair Work Act 2009_, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the _Fair Work Act_, such as the return to work guarantee. [Senator Chris Evans](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22), speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the _Fair Work Act 2009_. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the _Fair Work Act_ at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010). The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 10:42:04	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.</p> <p>The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the <i>Fair Work Act</i>, such as the return to work guarantee.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the <i>Fair Work Act</i> at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-13 11:52:42	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.</p> <p>The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the <i>Fair Work Act</i>, such as the return to work guarantee.</p> <p>The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the <i>Fair Work Act</i>, such as the return to work guarantee.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the <i>Fair Work Act</i> at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-13 11:47:00	Title Description ~~<p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to leave.</p>~~ <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.</p> <p>The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the <i>Fair Work Act</i>, such as the return to work guarantee.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-13 11:45:06	Title Description ~~<p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree with amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to leave.</p>~~ <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to leave.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.</p> <p>The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the <i>Fair Work Act</i>, such as the return to work guarantee.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-13 11:44:30	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 - Entitlement to paid parental leave Description ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the amendments (<b>Senator Hanson-Young’s</b>) be agreed to.</p>~~ <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree with amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> to introduce an entitlement to leave.</p> <p>This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.</p> <p>The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the <i>Fair Work Act</i>, such as the return to work guarantee.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the <i>Fair Work Act 2009</i>. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:19

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.
This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the Fair Work Act 2009, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the Fair Work Act, such as the return to work guarantee.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the Fair Work Act 2009. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the Fair Work Act at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the _Fair Work Act 2009_ to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.
This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party [Senator Sarah Hanson-Young](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22), who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the _Fair Work Act 2009_, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the _Fair Work Act_, such as the return to work guarantee.
[Senator Chris Evans](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22), speaking for the Labor Government, did not support the amendments. He relied on the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the _Fair Work Act 2009_. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the _Fair Work Act_ at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 10:42:04

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.
This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the Fair Work Act 2009, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the Fair Work Act, such as the return to work guarantee.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the Fair Work Act 2009. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the Fair Work Act at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-13 11:52:42

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.
This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing Fair Work Act 2009 leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the Fair Work Act, such as the return to work guarantee.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the eligibility for the existing unpaid leave provisions contained in the Fair Work Act 2009, it is possible that some women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the Fair Work Act, such as the return to work guarantee.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the Fair Work Act 2009. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave under the Fair Work Act 2009. He also made the point that the proposed amendments do not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards in the Fair Work Act at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-13 11:47:00

Title

Description

~~The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to leave.~~
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to paid parental leave.
This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing Fair Work Act 2009 leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the Fair Work Act, such as the return to work guarantee.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the Fair Work Act 2009. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-13 11:45:06

Title

Description

~~The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree with amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to leave.~~
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to leave.
This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing Fair Work Act 2009 leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the Fair Work Act, such as the return to work guarantee.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the Fair Work Act 2009. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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 2010-06-17#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-13 11:44:30

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 - Entitlement to paid parental leave

Description

~~That the amendments (Senator Hanson-Young’s) be agreed to.~~
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to agree with amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce an entitlement to leave.
This means that the majority of senators rejected the amendments.
The amendments were introduced by Greens Party <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0101;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Sarah Hanson-Young</a>, who argued that these amendments were necessary to ensure that the Labor Government’s paid parental leave scheme is more than “simply an entitlement to a payment”. According the Senator, this is a concern “because the entitlements for the payment are different to the existing entitlements for leave in the Fair Work Act”. As the eligibility for the paid parental leave scheme is more generous than the existing Fair Work Act 2009 leave provisions, it is possible that come women will be covered by the former and not the latter and therefore would not have the protections offered by the Fair Work Act, such as the return to work guarantee.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0102;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%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 the eligibility under the paid parental leave scheme being introduced should be more generous than eligibility for unpaid leave, which operate under the existing National Employment Standards contained in the Fair Work Act 2009. He also made the point that the amendment did not in fact "propose to provide all people eligible for paid parental leave with an unpaid leave entitlement and a return to work guarantee, only those with three months continuous service". He commented that this was really "just drawing the line in a different spot". Finally, he considered it inappropriate to expand the employment standards at this time as they had only been in operation for five and a half months (they started on 1 January 2010).
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. 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”.