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

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2010-06-17#4 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:19	Title Description The majority voted against a motion "''That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed''". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part. Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not. In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here]. ) ~~''Debate in Parliament''~~ The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here]. ) ~~''Background to the bills''~~ The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].) ~~References~~ The majority voted against a motion "_That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed_". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part. Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not. In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1). ) _Debate in Parliament_ The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [Mitchell Fifield](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate) moved an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1) that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1). See the other relevant divisions [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate) and [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate). ) _Background to the bills_ The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [bill's digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22) (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [website](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay).) References
senate vote 2010-06-17#4 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:39	Title Description The majority voted against a motion "''That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed''". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part. Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not. ~~In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.[1]~~ In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here]. ) ''Debate in Parliament'' The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.[2] The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here]. ) ''Background to the bills'' The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.[3] 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] See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here]. * [2] Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here]. * [3] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].
senate vote 2010-06-17#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-14 12:17:38	Title Description The majority voted against a motion "''That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed''". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part. Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not. ~~<p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p>~~ ~~<p><i>"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p>~~ ~~<p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.</p>~~ In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.[1] <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p> ''Debate in Parliament'' <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</p> The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.[2] ~~<p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>~~ <p>The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).</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>More information about the 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>. More information about the related 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>.</p> ''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.[3] References * [1] See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here]. * [2] Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here]. * [3] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].
senate vote 2010-06-17#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 13:20:50	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p> <p><i>"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p> <p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p> <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).</p> <p>The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).</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>More information about the 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>. More information about the related 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>.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-17#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 13:18:33	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p> <p><i>"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p> <p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p> <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an amendment that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The purpose of <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Fifield's amendment</a> was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).</p> <p>The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).</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>More information about the 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>. More information about the related 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>.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-17#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-01 13:16:55	Title Description ~~<p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion that part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 be agreed to without amendment.</p>~~ <p>The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:</p> <p><i>"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"</i></p> <p>In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.</p> <p>This means that the amendment to the bill that was put forward by the Coalition Opposition will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p> <p>The amendment opposes part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, which transfers the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The amendment’s purpose is to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that have the same purpose.</p> <p>In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed amendment then the Opposition (Coalition) would not insist on it. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> ~~<p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p>~~ <p>The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an amendment that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The purpose of <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Fifield's amendment</a> was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).</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>Note that the “For paid parental leave” policy vote is listed as “abstain” for this division. This is because, while the division is relevant to the subject of paid parental leave, it is possible for supporters of paid parental leave to vote either way on the issue dealt with by this division.</p> <p>More information about the Paid Parental Leave (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>. More information about the related 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>.</p>
senate vote 2010-06-17#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-09-13 11:09:31	Title ~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — In Committee~~ Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Administration of payment Description ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That part 1 of schedule 2 stand as printed</p>~~ <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion that part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 be agreed to without amendment.</p> <p>This means that the amendment to the bill that was put forward by the Coalition Opposition will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.</p> <p>The amendment opposes part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, which transfers the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The amendment’s purpose is to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that have the same purpose.</p> <p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed amendment then the Opposition (Coalition) would not insist on it. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.</p> <p>Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.</p> <p>The Coalition’s election victory in 2013 may see changes to paid parental leave. For example, they have maintained their position that payments should be administered by 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>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>

Change

Division

senate vote 2010-06-17#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:19

Title

Description

The majority voted against a motion "''That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed''". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here]. )
~~''Debate in Parliament''~~
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here]. )
~~''Background to the bills''~~
The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].)
~~References~~
The majority voted against a motion "_That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed_". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1). )
_Debate in Parliament_
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [Mitchell Fifield](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate) moved an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1) that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1). See the other relevant divisions [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate) and [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate). )
_Background to the bills_
The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [bill's digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22) (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [website](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay).)
References

senate vote 2010-06-17#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:39

Title

Description

The majority voted against a motion "''That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed''". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
~~In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.[1]~~
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here]. )
''Debate in Parliament''
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.[2]
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.(Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here]. )
''Background to the bills''
The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.[3]
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] See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here].
* [2] Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here].
* [3] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].

senate vote 2010-06-17#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 12:17:38

Title

Description

The majority voted against a motion "''That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed''". In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
~~The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:~~
~~"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"~~
~~In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.~~
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.[1]
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
''Debate in Parliament''
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitchell Fifield] moved an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 amendment] that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. Senator Fifield explained that the purpose of that amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose.[2]
~~Debate in Parliament~~
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).
~~More information~~
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].
More information about the 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>. More information about the related 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>.
''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.[3]
References
* [1] See Senator Fifield's statement to that effect [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.83.1 here].
* [2] Read Senator Fifield's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2010-06-17.79.1 here]. See the other relevant divisions [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate here] and [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate here].
* [3] Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/X60X6/upload_binary/x60x60.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/X60X6%22 bill's digest] (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services [http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-leave-pay website].

senate vote 2010-06-17#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 13:20:50

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:
"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"
In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.
Debate in Parliament
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to keep the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).
More information
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].
More information about the 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>. More information about the related 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>.

senate vote 2010-06-17#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 13:18:33

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:
"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"
In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.
Debate in Parliament
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an amendment that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The purpose of <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Fifield's amendment</a> was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">amendment</a> that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">purpose</a> of Senator Fifield's amendment was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).
More information
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].
More information about the 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>. More information about the related 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>.

senate vote 2010-06-17#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-01 13:16:55

Title

Description

~~The Aye voters failed to pass a motion that part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 be agreed to without amendment.~~
The Aye voters failed to pass the following motion:
"That part 1 of schedule 2 [of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010] stand as printed"
In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported that part.
This means that the amendment to the bill that was put forward by the Coalition Opposition will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
Someone who voted Aye supported the part. Since the majority voted No, an amendment to oppose the part will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
The amendment opposes part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, which transfers the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The amendment’s purpose is to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that have the same purpose.
In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the part and so it remained as it was. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">did not insist</a> on the amendment.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed amendment then the Opposition (Coalition) would not insist on it. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.
<b>Debate in Parliament
~~Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.~~
The motion on whether to support the part was put after Liberal Party <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a> moved an amendment that it should be opposed. The part transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The purpose of <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0107;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Fifield's amendment</a> was to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that had the same purpose (see those divisions <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=4&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a> and <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-06-16&number=5&dmp=5&house=senate">here</a>).
More information
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].
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.
More information about the 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>. More information about the related 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>.

senate vote 2010-06-17#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-09-13 11:09:31

Title

~~Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010; Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 — In Committee~~
Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Administration of payment

Description

~~That part 1 of schedule 2 stand as printed~~
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion that part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 be agreed to without amendment.
This means that the amendment to the bill that was put forward by the Coalition Opposition will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.
The amendment opposes part 1 of schedule 2 of the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010, which transfers the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. The amendment’s purpose is to place the administrative burden of the scheme on the government rather than on employers and it was ancillary to other more substantive amendments proposed in respect to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 that have the same purpose.
<a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0111;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-06-17%2F0000%22">Senator Mitchell Fifield</a>, who moved the amendment, said that if the House disagreed with the proposed amendment then the Opposition (Coalition) would not insist on it. This was because the Opposition agreed that a paid parental leave scheme needed to be introduced, even though they consider this scheme is not perfect.
Thus, when the House did in fact disagree with the amendment, this did not prevent the bill from becoming law.
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].
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.