|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:01
|
Title
Description
The [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 amendment] to the administration of payment process within the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was unsuccessful. Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.''Debate in Parliament''Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives Bruce Billson] moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary.(Read Billson MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 here].
) He said the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin], who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission.(Read Macklin MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.33.1 here].
) She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.''Background to the bill''The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was introduced to extend the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks’ dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage.(Read more about the bill and its context [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22 here]. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay Department of Human Services website].)References- The [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1) to the administration of payment process within the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was unsuccessful.
- Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.
- _Debate in Parliament_
- Liberal MP [Bruce Billson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives) moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary.(Read Billson MP's explanation [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1). ) He said the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.
- Labor MP [Jenny Macklin](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives), who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission.(Read Macklin MP's whole contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.33.1). ) She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.
- _Background to the bill_
- The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was introduced to extend the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks’ dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage.(Read more about the bill and its context [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22). For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the [Department of Human Services website](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay).)
- References
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:52
|
Title
Description
- The [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 amendment] to the administration of payment process within the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was unsuccessful.
- Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.
- ''Debate in Parliament''
Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives Bruce Billson] moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary.[1] He said the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.- Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives Bruce Billson] moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary.(Read Billson MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 here].
) He said the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.
Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin], who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission.[2] She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.- Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin], who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission.(Read Macklin MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.33.1 here].
) She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.
- ''Background to the bill''
The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was introduced to extend the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks’ dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage.[3]- The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was introduced to extend the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks’ dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage.(Read more about the bill and its context [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22 here]. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay Department of Human Services website].)
- References
* [1] Read Billson MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 here].* [2] Read Macklin MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.33.1 here].* [3] Read more about the bill and its context [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22 here]. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay Department of Human Services website].
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-02-14 12:51:00
|
Title
Description
The [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 amendment] to the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was unsuccessful. - The [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 amendment] to the administration of payment process within the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was unsuccessful.
- Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.
- ''Debate in Parliament''
- Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives Bruce Billson] moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary.[1] He said the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.
- Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin], who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission.[2] She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.
- ''Background to the bill''
- The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was introduced to extend the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks’ dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read Billson MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 here].
- * [2] Read Macklin MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.33.1 here].
- * [3] Read more about the bill and its context [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22 here]. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay Department of Human Services website].
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-02-14 12:50:17
|
Title
Description
- The [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 amendment] to the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was unsuccessful.
- Someone who voted Aye supported the amendment. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.
- Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives Bruce Billson] moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary.[1] He said the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.
<p>The Aye voters failed to pass an amendment to the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p><p>Someone who voted Aye supported <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0096;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">the amendment</a>. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.</p><p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p><p>The Liberal Party's <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives">Bruce Billson MP</a> moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0096;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">He said</a> the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.</p><p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</p><p><b>More information</b></p><p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, they have maintained their position that payments should be administered by the government rather than by the employer. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p><p>For more information on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and its context see <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22">here</a>. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay">Department of Human Services website</a>.</p>- Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives Jenny Macklin], who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission.[2] She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.
- ''Background to the bill''
- The Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 was introduced to extend the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to certain working fathers and partners so that they receive two weeks’ dad and partner pay at the rate of the national minimum wage.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read Billson MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.32.1 here].
- * [2] Read Macklin MP's whole contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-05-24.33.1 here].
- * [3] Read more about the bill and its context [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22 here]. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay Department of Human Services website].
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-11-01 14:29:42
|
Title
Description
- <p>The Aye voters failed to pass an amendment to the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p>
- <p>Someone who voted Aye supported <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0096;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">the amendment</a>. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.</p>
- <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
- <p>The Liberal Party's <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives">Bruce Billson MP</a> moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0096;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">He said</a> the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.</p>
- <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</p>
- <p><b>More information</b></p>
<p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, they have maintained their position that payments should be administered by government rather than by the employer. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p>- <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, they have maintained their position that payments should be administered by the government rather than by the employer. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p>
- <p>For more information on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and its context see <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22">here</a>. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay">Department of Human Services website</a>.</p>
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-11-01 14:27:45
|
Title
Description
<p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p><p>There were an equal number of Aye and No votes and so the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the noes. This means that the motion to amend failed.</p>- <p>The Aye voters failed to pass an amendment to the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">amendment</a> intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.</p>- <p>Someone who voted Aye supported <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0096;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">the amendment</a>. As there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. There is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form and so the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the Noes. This means that the amendment failed.</p>
<p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</p>- <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
- <p>The Liberal Party's <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bruce_Billson&mpc=Dunkley&house=representatives">Bruce Billson MP</a> moved the amendment in order to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0096;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">He said</a> the purpose of the amendment was to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.</p>
- <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Jenny_Macklin&mpc=Jagajaga&house=representatives">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">said that</a> the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</p>
- <p><b>More information</b></p>
- <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, they have maintained their position that payments should be administered by government rather than by the employer. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p>
<p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p>- <p>For more information on the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 and its context see <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F1624889%22">here</a>. For more information about paid parental leave more generally, see the <a href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay">Department of Human Services website</a>.</p>
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-09-13 10:54:21
|
Title
Description
- <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p>
- <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No votes and so the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the noes. This means that the motion to amend failed.</p>
- <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">amendment</a> intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.</p>
- <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</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>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, they have maintained their position that payments should be administered by government rather than by the employer. A copy of their proposed paid parental leave scheme can be found <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20for%20Paid%20Parental%20Leave.pdf">here</a> [1.7MB].</p>
- <p>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p>
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-09-13 10:45:42
|
Title
Description
- <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p>
- <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No votes and so the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the noes. This means that the motion to amend failed.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">amendment</a> intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the bill, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</p>- <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">amendment</a> intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”.</p>
- <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</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 listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p>
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-09-13 10:44:34
|
Title
Description
- <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p>
- <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No votes and so the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the noes. This means that the motion to amend failed.</p>
<p>The amendment intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">“reduce the compliance burden for employers”</a>. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the bill, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</p>- <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">amendment</a> intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to “reduce the compliance burden for employers”. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the bill, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</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 listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p>
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-09-13 10:43:13
|
Title
Description
- <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p>
<p>Because there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the noes. This means that the motion to amend failed.</p>- <p>There were an equal number of Aye and No votes and so the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the noes. This means that the motion to amend failed.</p>
- <p>The amendment intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">“reduce the compliance burden for employers”</a>. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the bill, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</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 listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p>
|
|
representatives vote 2012-05-24#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-09-13 10:42:14
|
Title
Bills — Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail- Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Amendment to administration of payment
Description
<p class="speaker">Bruce Billson</p><p>I ask leave to move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together.</p><p>Leave granted.</p>- <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to amend the Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012.</p>
- <p>Because there were an equal number of Aye and No votes, the Deputy Speaker had a casting vote to decide the tie. As there is a principle that a casting vote on an amendment should leave the bill in its original form, the Deputy Speaker gave her casting vote to the noes. This means that the motion to amend failed.</p>
- <p>The amendment intended to shift default responsibility for administering paid parental leave payments away from the employer and onto the federal department secretary in order to <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr4780_amend_a490e920-65bb-46aa-8d5b-457e07e7a516%22">“reduce the compliance burden for employers”</a>. <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0097;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F7b0b2bac-de69-42c1-8a98-2d16329f051f%2F0000%22">Jenny Macklin MP</a>, who introduced the bill, said that the Labor Government opposed this amendment on the basis of recommendations made by the Productivity Commission. She said the Commission recommended that “the delivery mechanism [of the scheme] should demonstrate that paid parental leave is a normal feature of employment arrangements like other workplace entitlements such as annual leave”.</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 listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p>
<p>The amendments that I will put on behalf of the coalition are very sensible amendments. I am reminded, in listening to the minister, that I think Bill Kelty was right—sometimes the truth will do. There is nothing of the kind in the amendments that the coalition is putting forward that does in any way undermine the government's scheme. We have some well argued and clearly articulated views that people's costs do not default to a minimum wage when a child arrives—people's household expenses continue—and that the coalition's paid parental leave proposal is responsive to that real-life reality, giving real money and real time to deal with the real expenses families face.</p><p>But, given that the government is not receptive to the coalition's improved and far superior paid parental leave scheme, we are seeing what we can do to improve the scheme that is currently operating. The coalition's amendments seek to do that by relieving a completely unnecessary and unjustified burden on employers, particularly small employers, to act as the pay clerks for the government's scheme. The amendments that we have put forward seek to vary the current default position under the Paid Parental Leave Act where employers, in the majority of cases, are mandated by the department secretary to carry out the Commonwealth's paid parental leave pay-clerk responsibilities. The amendments would change this so that employers would only pay PPL payments when both the employer and the employee consented to the employer making those payments. What that means is that—for an employer with the resources, the size of operation or, in some cases, with a scheme of their own already where they are keen and in a position to do the government's work for it in making these payments, and where the employee feels that that is in their interests as well—that arrangement can take place.</p><p>That opt-in arrangement would see an employer complete the paperwork and verify eligibility in partnership with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth would confirm eligibility and then interact with the employer and then set around a number of payments—a number of payments that in fact probably total about 20 transactions. I will just hold up for the benefit of the chamber and for those who are interested a flowchart of what would actually take place. There are almost 20 separate transactions that an employer is obliged to be engaged with once it has been confirmed that an employee is eligible for the government funded, government determined PPL payments.</p><p>Our argument is this. We know there is a significant increase in small business insolvencies, with time-scarce small business employers working very hard to stay afloat. They are cash poor, in many cases, and without the organisational infrastructure to change their payroll system so that this payment coming through the Commonwealth mimics a payment as if it were made by employers but then is not subject to many of the other requirements that come along with a payroll system. Our view is that not all employers are inclined to do that work or are in a position to carry it out without considerable and unnecessary cost and compliance risk. Once they have been determined by the secretary to be obliged to carry out this role, if they do not carry out that responsibility a substantial fine is available to the government to penalise them and that is an additional compliance risk for an employer.</p><p>I was very interested to hear in the second reading debate a number of the Labor members talk about how well the scheme was going because so many employers were involved. What an Orwellian contribution that was. They do not have a choice—they are obliged to be involved. To use that argument to say there is no problem here, there is no opportunity for improvement, is absolute nonsense. In relation to the minister's argument that this would, in her words, 'undermine the scheme' encourages me to go back— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Leigh</p><p>Order! I understand the honourable member has not in fact moved the amendments but had been granted leave to move the amendments. I invite the member for Dunkley to formally move the amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Bruce Billson</p><p>I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 3), at the end of the table, add:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 2, page 58 (after line 25), at the end of the Schedule, add:</p><p class="italic">Part 3—Amendments to reduce the compliance burden for employers</p><p class="italic"> <i>Paid Parental Leave Act 2010</i></p><p class="italic">36 Section 4 (fourth paragraph under the heading " <i>Chapter 3—Payment of parental leave pay</i> ")</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">37 Section 6 (definition of <i>employer determination decision</i> )</p><p class="italic">Repeal the definition.</p><p class="italic">38 Section 6 (definition of <i>subject to review</i> )</p><p class="italic">Repeal the definition.</p><p class="italic">39 Section 6 (definition of <i>transfer day</i> )</p><p class="italic">Omit "(3),".</p><p class="italic">40 Subsection 64(1) (note)</p><p class="italic">Omit "Sections 93 and 94 affect", substitute "Section 94 affects".</p><p class="italic">41 Section 83</p><p class="italic">Omit "is being reviewed or".</p><p class="italic">42 Subsection 84(3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">43 Subsection 85(1)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(1) This section applies if both of the following apply:</p><p class="italic">  (a) the Secretary is required to pay an instalment to a person under subsection 84(4) (which deals with payment of instalments where an employer determination is revoked);</p><p class="italic">  (b) the employer determination made for the person and the person's employer has never come into force.</p><p class="italic">44 Subsection 85(3)</p><p class="italic">Omit "paragraph (1)(a) or (b)", substitute "subsection (1)".</p><p class="italic">45 Section 93</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section.</p><p class="italic">46 Section 100</p><p class="italic">Omit the section, substitute:</p><p class="italic">100 Guide to this Part</p><p class="italic">47 Subsection 101(1)</p><p class="italic">Omit "Secretary must", substitute "Secretary may".</p><p class="italic">48 Paragraphs 101(b) and (c)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) both the person and the employer have consented in the claim to the employer paying instalments to the person; and</p><p class="italic">49 Paragraph 101(f)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">; and (f) the employer determination is made on or before the day on which the payability determination referred to in paragraph (a) is made.</p><p class="italic">50 Subsections 101(2) and (3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsections.</p><p class="italic">51 Subsection 101(4)</p><p class="italic">Omit all the words after and including "of all or any", substitute "that the employer is not a fit and proper person".</p><p class="italic">52 Subsection 102(5)</p><p class="italic">After "a person", insert "and the person's employer".</p><p class="italic">53 Subsection 102(5)</p><p class="italic">Omit "the person a", substitute "them a".</p><p class="italic">54 Subsection 102(5)</p><p class="italic">Omit "the person of", substitute "them of".</p><p class="italic">55 Section 103</p><p class="italic">Before "Within", insert "(1)".</p><p class="italic">56 Section 103</p><p class="italic">Omit all the words after and including "do one of", substitute "give the Secretary a written notice (the <i>acceptance notice</i>) that complies with section 104".</p><p class="italic">57 Section 103 (note)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the note.</p><p class="italic">58 At the end of section 103</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">(2) The employer may, at any time, by written notice given to the Secretary, withdraw the acceptance notice.</p><p class="italic">59 Subsection 104(5)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">60 Sections 105 and 106</p><p class="italic">Repeal the sections.</p><p class="italic">61 Subsection 107(1)</p><p class="italic">Omit "or (3)".</p><p class="italic">62 Subsection 107(2)</p><p class="italic">Omit "or a compliance notice given under section 157".</p><p class="italic">63 Subsection 107(3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">64 Subsection 108(1) (table item 2)</p><p class="italic">Omit "as required by a compliance notice given for a contravention of section 103", substitute "within the time required under subsection 103(1) or has, by written notice given to the Secretary, withdrawn the acceptance notice for the employer determination".</p><p class="italic">65 Subsection 108(6)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">66 Division 4 of Part 3-5</p><p class="italic">Repeal the Division.</p><p class="italic">67 Section 146 (table items 10 and 11)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the items.</p><p class="italic">68 Subsection 157(1)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Compliance notice given by Secretary</i></p><p class="italic">(1) This section applies if the Secretary reasonably believes that a person has contravened subsection 82(2) (which deals with notifying the Secretary if certain events happen).</p><p class="italic">69 Paragraphs 159(1)(b) and (c)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraphs.</p><p class="italic">70 Section 202 (fifth paragraph of the Guide to Part 5-1)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</p><p class="italic">71 Subsection 203(2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">72 Subsection 205(1)</p><p class="italic">Omit ", 207".</p><p class="italic">73 Paragraph 206(1)(b)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph.</p><p class="italic">74 Section 207</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section.</p><p class="italic">75 Subsection 209(2)</p><p class="italic">Omit ", other than an application under section 207 (which deals with application for review of employer determination decisions),".</p><p class="italic">76 Paragraphs 210(2)(a) and (b)</p><p class="italic">Omit "an employer determination decision or".</p><p class="italic">77 Paragraphs 212(1)(c)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph.</p><p class="italic">78 Paragraph 212(1)(d)</p><p class="italic">Omit "any other", substitute "a".</p><p class="italic">79 Section 213</p><p class="italic">Omit "employer determination decisions and".</p><p class="italic">80 Subparagraphs 215(2)(a)(vi) and (vii)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subparagraphs.</p><p class="italic">81 Paragraphs 223(1)(a) to (d)</p><p class="italic">Omit "an employer determination decision or".</p><p class="italic">82 Subsection 224(1)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p class="italic">83 Subsection 224(3)</p><p class="italic">Omit "(1) or".</p><p class="italic">84 Paragraph 225(2)(b)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the paragraph.</p><p>As Bill Kelty said, the truth will often do. The changes that we are foreshadowing in these amendments do not in any way alter people's eligibility. They do not in any way compromise what the minister boasts about as the success of the scheme. In fact, what was ironic was that in the early phase of the scheme, the option that we are putting forward was the way the scheme operated. So for the first six months this is what happened: these payments were paid by Centrelink through the Family Assistance Office directly to eligible employees and it was on that basis the government went around boasting about the success of the scheme. All we are saying is let the success continue. If that is the benchmark, make that available to employers. But for those where the employee and the employer wish to have the employer handle the payment then so be it. We are not objecting to that. If that is people's desire then these amendments facilitate that.</p><p>I remember last time this debate was held that one of the people brought out in support of the current arrangements was Sony, a very substantial international corporation with more people in their pay office than most small businesses have in their entire enterprise. They had an existing paid parental leave scheme, so it was a matter of simply bolting on the extra cash from the Commonwealth and they were more than happy to do that. I say good luck to them, but not every business in Australia is Sony. Not everyone is in a position to carry out that work and not everyone is desirous of carrying out that work, either as an employer or as an employee, but if they are, let them do that work on behalf of the Commonwealth. Let employers and employees who are eligible for PPL payments opt in to have the employer pay those payments.</p><p>The minister says this is part of the staying in touch regime. Again, I would draw her attention to the fact that the staying in touch provisions that are available under the legislation the government has introduced are not being altered at all. We are not stopping that. We see the value in that. Where there might be some change in technology or an important occasion within the workplace where someone on a period of paid parental leave is invited to come back in and be a part of the workplace because of something of significance, we are not opposed to that. What this is about is who organises the back of house work to see some digits appear in an electronic bank statement. This is not mid last century, when you came in and got your pay cheque off somebody. There is no physical engagement with this payment—it is an electronic funds transfer. So how that adds to the quality of the relationship between an employer and an employee is beyond me. I am quite certain most workplaces I have been involved with and many I have talked to, rather than turn their minds to more than 20 engagements in transactions with the risk of fines if they get them wrong, would rather spend their time talking with the person eligible for paid parental leave about how things are going, how the microhuman is going, how the family is going and how excited people are about coming back, even organising a bouquet of flowers, not having this the red tape burden that would distract the employer from that work.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|