Division Description Changes — Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — Second Reading — 31st May 2010

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:05	Title Description ~~The majority voted in favour of a motion "''That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.''"~~ ~~In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged.~~ [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.(Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. ) ~~Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful.~~ ~~''Debate in Parliament''~~ Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.(Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. ) These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government). Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.(Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here] ) Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement. ~~''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 in favour of a motion "_That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question._" In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged. [Tony Abbott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives) MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.(Read Abbott MP's proposal [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1). ) Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful. _Debate in Parliament_ Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.(Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1). ) These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government). Labor MP [Jenny Macklin](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives) disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.(Read Macklin MP's who contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1) ) Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement. _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
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:18	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a motion "''That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.''" In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged. [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.[1] [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.(Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. ) Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful. ''Debate in Parliament'' Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.[2] These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government). Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.(Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. ) These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government). Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.[3] Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement. Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.(Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here] ) Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement. ''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.[4] 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] Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. * [2] Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. * [3] Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here] * [4] 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].
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-14 11:11:21	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a motion "''That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.''" ~~<p>The Aye voters succeeded in passing the following motion:</p>~~ <p><i>That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.</i></p> <p>In other words, the motion was on whether the words being discussed should remain unchanged.</p> In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged. <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives">Tony Abbott MP</a>, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.</p> [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.[1] <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to call for amendments was unsuccessful.</p> Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful. <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> ''Debate in Parliament'' <p>Tony Abbott MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">argued that</a> there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended. These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).</p> Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.[2] These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government). <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.[3] Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement. ~~<p><b>More information</b></p>~~ ''Background to the bills'' <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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> 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.[4] <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] Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. * [2] Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. * [3] Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here] * [4] 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].
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 11:13:57	Title Description <p>The Aye voters succeeded in passing the following motion:</p> <p><i>That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.</i></p> <p>In other words, the motion was on whether the words being discussed should remain unchanged.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives">Tony Abbott MP</a>, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to call for amendments was unsuccessful.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>Tony Abbott MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">argued that</a> there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended. These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> <p><b>More information</b></p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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>
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 11:11:27	Title Description <p>The Aye voters succeeded in passing the following motion:</p> <p><i>That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.</i></p> <p>In other words, the motion was on whether the words being discussed should remain unchanged.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives">Tony Abbott MP</a>, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.</p> <p>The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to call for amendments was unsuccessful.</p> ~~<p>This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.</p>~~ <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).</p> <p>Tony Abbott MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">argued that</a> there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended. These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> <p><b>More information</b></p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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 currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the Opposition's motion arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</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>
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-18 09:06:26	Title Description <p>The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.</p> <p>This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.</p> <p>The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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 currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p> <p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the Opposition's motion arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p>
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-18 09:05:26	Title Description <p>The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.</p> <p>This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.</p> <p>The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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 currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who introduced a pain parental leave scheme with their legislation) voted “No”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p> <p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p>
representatives vote 2010-05-31#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-18 09:03:45	Title ~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — Second Reading~~ Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - Second Reading - Coalition amendments Description ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Abbott’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</p>~~ <p>The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.</p> <p>This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.</p> <p>The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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 currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who introduced a pain parental leave scheme with their legislation) voted “No”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.</p>

Change

Division

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:05

Title

Description

~~The majority voted in favour of a motion "''That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.''"~~
~~In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged.~~
[http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.(Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. )
~~Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful.~~
~~''Debate in Parliament''~~
Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.(Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. ) These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.(Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here] ) Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
~~''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 in favour of a motion "_That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question._"
In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged.
[Tony Abbott](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives) MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.(Read Abbott MP's proposal [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1). )
Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful.
_Debate in Parliament_
Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.(Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1). ) These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
Labor MP [Jenny Macklin](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives) disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.(Read Macklin MP's who contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1) ) Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
_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

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:18

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a motion "''That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.''"
In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged.
[http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.[1]
[http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.(Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. )
Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful.
''Debate in Parliament''
Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.[2] These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.(Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here]. ) These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.[3] Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.(Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here] ) Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
''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.[4]
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] Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here].
* [2] Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here].
* [3] Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here]
* [4] 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].

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 11:11:21

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a motion "''That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.''"
~~The Aye voters succeeded in passing the following motion:~~
That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.
In other words, the motion was on whether the words being discussed should remain unchanged.
In other words, it was a motion to keep the words referred to unchanged.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives">Tony Abbott MP</a>, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.
[http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives Tony Abbott] MP, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.[1]
Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to call for amendments was unsuccessful.
Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to change the words was unsuccessful.
Debate in Parliament
''Debate in Parliament''
Tony Abbott MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">argued that</a> there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended. These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
Tony Abbott MP argued that there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended.[2] These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin] disagreed. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly.[3] Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
~~More information~~
''Background to the bills''
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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].
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.[4]
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>.
References
* [1] Read Abbott MP's proposal [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here].
* [2] Read Abbott MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-27.23.1 here].
* [3] Read Macklin MP's who contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-05-31.54.1 here]
* [4] 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].

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 11:13:57

Title

Description

The Aye voters succeeded in passing the following motion:
That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.
In other words, the motion was on whether the words being discussed should remain unchanged.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives">Tony Abbott MP</a>, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.
Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to call for amendments was unsuccessful.
Debate in Parliament
Tony Abbott MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">argued that</a> there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended. These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long term employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
More information
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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].
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>.

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 11:11:27

Title

Description

The Aye voters succeeded in passing the following motion:
That the words proposed to be omitted ... stand part of the question.
In other words, the motion was on whether the words being discussed should remain unchanged.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Abbott&mpc=Warringah&house=representatives">Tony Abbott MP</a>, leader of the Coalition opposition, had proposed to replace the words in a motion to read the bills a second time with words that called on the Labor Government to amend parts of the proposed paid parental leave scheme.
The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.
Someone who voted Aye wanted the words to remain unchanged. Since the majority of members voted Aye, Abbott MP's attempt to call for amendments was unsuccessful.
~~This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.~~
Debate in Parliament
The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
Tony Abbott MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">argued that</a> there were a series of “flaws” in the government's paid parental leave scheme that needed to be amended. These included the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
<a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, disagreed. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">She argued</a> that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
More information
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the Opposition's motion arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.
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>.

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 09:06:26

Title

Description

The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.
This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.
The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the Opposition's motion arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 09:05:26

Title

Description

The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.
This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.
The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who introduced a pain parental leave scheme with their legislation) voted “No”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “No” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who actually introduced a paid parental leave scheme with their legislation and so clearly support it) voted “Aye”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.

representatives vote 2010-05-31#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-18 09:03:45

Title

~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — Second Reading~~
Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - Second Reading - Coalition amendments

Description

~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Abbott’s amendment) stand part of the question.~~
The Aye voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Labor Government to amend aspects of the paid parental leave scheme to be introduced by the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2012 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.</p>
This means that the majority of members rejected the motion.
The motion was moved by Coalition Leader of the Opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-27%2F0000%22">Tony Abbott MP</a>. It called on the Labor Government to correct a series of “flaws” in the paid parental leave scheme, including the fact that it does not include superannuation, is only 18 weeks long (rather than 26 weeks), is paid at the level of the minimum wage (rather than a replacement wage) and requires employers to administer the scheme (rather than the government).
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0061;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-05-31%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, speaking on behalf of the Labor Government, opposed the motion. She argued that the inclusion of superannuation would be considered when the scheme is reviewed in two years and that extending the scheme or providing a replacement wage rather than the minimum wage would be too costly. Finally, she argued that employers should administer the scheme for their long time employees because the Labor Party wants the scheme to be treated like any other workplace entitlement.
The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, the Coalition has maintained its position in respect to superannuation, extending the scheme to 26 weeks, providing a replacement wage (up to a certain amount) and administering the scheme through government rather than 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].
Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is currently listed as “Aye” for this division, despite the fact that the Labor Government (who introduced a pain parental leave scheme with their legislation) voted “No”. This is because the amendment arguably increases the benefits attached to paid parental leave and is therefore in keeping with the policy “For paid parental leave”.