How Ron Boswell voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should administer the paid parental leave scheme rather than employers

Division Ron Boswell Supporters vote Division outcome

17th Jun 2010, 12:09 PM – Senate Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Administration of payment

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion "That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.

Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part 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 part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect here. )

Debate in Parliament

The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator Mitchell Fifield moved an amendment that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation here. See the other relevant divisions here and 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 bill's digest (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services website.)

References

No No (strong) Not passed by a small majority

16th Jun 2010, 6:29 PM – Senate Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Administration of payment

Show detail

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. ) 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. )

Debate in Parliament

The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party Senator Mitchell Fifield moved that they should be opposed.(See that motion 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 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 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 bill's digest (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services website.)

References

No No (strong) Not passed

16th Jun 2010, 6:20 PM – Senate Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Administration of Payment

Show detail

The majority failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, which was introduced by Liberal Senator Mitchell Fifield.

Senator Fifield explained that the amendments aimed to ensure that the government's Family Assistance Office continued to administer the paid parental leave scheme indefinitely.(Read Senator Fifield's whole explanation here. ) He said that their purpose was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers.

Labor Senator 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 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 bill's digest (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services website.)

References

Yes Yes (strong) Not passed by a small majority

14th Jun 2007, 9:45 AM – Senate Motions - Paid Maternity Leave - Government funded paid maternity leave

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Kerry Nettle and also on behalf of Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. This means that the motion was rejected.

The motion was:

That the Senate- (a) notes that Australia and the United States of America are the only two Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries without a national paid maternity leave scheme; (b) congratulates marie claire for its ‘Push It’ campaign calling for mandatory paid maternity leave; and(Read more about the campaign here.) (c) calls on the Government to legislate for government-funded paid maternity leave.

References

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

How "voted strongly for" is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes Points Out of
Most important votes (50 points)      
MP voted with policy 3 150 150
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 150 160

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 150 / 160 = 94%.

And then