Senate debates

Thursday, 17 June 2010

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

In Committee

12:03 pm

Photo of Mitch FifieldMitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

I can answer Senator Hanson-Young: it is because we like to believe the best about the government. We would like to believe that the government might seriously consider this particular amendment and the earlier substantive amendments to the primary bill, because they seek to lift the burden off small business. We know that the government would not entertain a number of the other amendments which were moved by other parties and that had no prospect of success in the other place, but we do hope that the government will seriously look at this. We did indicate that we are not going to seek to imperil the bill or to frustrate it and that, if this is successful and bounces back from the House, we will not insist. That is because we have two objectives. One is that we want to see a paid parental leave scheme in Australia, although this scheme is not perfect. We have another objective, which is to lighten the burden on small business wherever we can. We would hope that the government would share that objective and take the opportunity that a successful amendment would provide for the government to consider that in the other place. So that is what we hope the government will do.

Question put:

That part 1 of schedule 2 stand as printed

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.