Skip to content
Political Tracker

16 June 2010 · 6:29 PM · Division 5

Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010

In Committee - Administration of payment
Official title
Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Administration of payment

Tied vote

Aye
30
No
30
Not recorded voting
16

“Not recorded voting” is everyone eligible who isn't recorded as Aye or No, for example absent, paired, or presiding.

What was decided

The majority voted against a motion "...that subclause 69(1), subclause 70(2) and the note, part 3-2, clauses 85 and 86, clauses 93 and 94 and part 3-5 [of the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010] stand as printed"

In other words, the senators were voting on whether they supported those clauses and parts.

Someone who voted Aye supported the clauses and parts. Since there were an equal number of Aye and No voters, the Chairman found that “the clauses and parts lack majority support”.(The Chairman's ruling can be found here. ) This means that an amendment to oppose these clauses and parts will be attached to the bill when it is returned to the House of Representatives for their consideration. The House will then decide whether it agrees with the amendment or not.

In this case, the House rejected the amendment to oppose the clauses and parts and so they remained as they were. The bill was ultimately passed because the opposition did not insist on the amendment.(Read Senator Fifield's statement here. )

Debate in Parliament

The motion on whether to support the particular clauses and parts was put after Liberal Party Senator Mitchell Fifield moved that they should be opposed.(See that motion here. ) The clauses and parts transferred the responsibility for making payments under the paid parental leave scheme to the employer rather than the department secretary. When opposing this, Senator Fifield said that the administrative burden of the scheme should be on the government rather than on employers.

Labor Senator Mark Arbib disagreed with the amendments. He said that the paid parental leave scheme is based on a design recommended by the Productivity Commission and argued that paid parental leave should be treated as any other work entitlement and therefore “paid in accordance with an employer’s normal pay practices and the employees’ usual pay cycle”.(Read Senator Arbib's whole argument here. )

Background to the bills

The Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010 and the Paid Parental Leave (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 were introduced by the Labor Government to establish a Government-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme from 1 January 2011.(Read more about the Government's paid parental leave scheme in the bill's digest (522 KB) and the Department of Human Services website.)

References

Summary written by They Vote For You contributors. Read it with the debate

Policies this vote counts towards

How They Vote For You uses this vote when scoring members against each policy.

Votes by party

Both bars use the same scale: number of members.
Aye
31
No
31
Votes by party as a table
PartyAyeNo
Australian Labor Party250
Liberal Party023
Australian Greens50
National Party04
Country Liberal Party01
Deputy Senate President01
Family First Party01
Senate President10
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party01

How each member voted

Aye · 31

No · 31

Spotted a mistake? Report a correction.