Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The concern may be that employers and employees may think from the heading to the amendment that it simply compels the passing on by an employer to an employee the 18-week parenting payment rather than going further. You have now confirmed the government does intend the amendment to go further in saying that not only must an employer pass on to an employee the 18-week parenting payment but that employer cannot use the passing on of that 18-week payment to satisfy or fulfil other obligations. In the words of the guts of the amendment itself, it must be in addition to an obligation that an employer has to that person arising in a different way, be it under a Commonwealth or state law or an industrial instrument. So potentially it is arguable that the heading to the amendment has a very different effect from the guts of the amendment. You are saying to the Senate, if I understand you correctly, that the guts of the amendment is what the government actually intends the amendment to achieve, so you might reflect on how that is a potentially misleading heading.