25th Oct 2017, 10:17 AM – Representatives Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Disagree with bill's main idea

The majority voted against a motion that asked the House to refuse to give the bill a second reading. In other words, they motion asked the House to disagree with the bill's main idea, which means the House would stop considering the bill any further.

Because this motion failed, the House continued to discuss the main idea of the bill.

Motion text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give this bill a second reading as:

(1) this is a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year;

(2) the Government is already supporting cuts to penalty rates for low and middle income workers;

(3) at a time of low wages growth and the high cost of living pressures, including energy costs, the Government should not be seeking to raise taxes on these low and middle income workers;

(4) the Government:

(a) is cutting funding for vocational education, university and research infrastructure, and transport infrastructure;

(b) has failed to abolish the Nation-Building Funds previously; and

(c) has sidelined Infrastructure Australia when making infrastructure investment decisions;

(5) the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been fully funded in a bipartisan fashion, and funding has been allocated to the NDIS in all Budgets since 2013-14 and bilateral agreements with the states that contain the Commonwealth Government's commitment to the full funding of the NDIS have been signed in a bipartisan manner;

(6) like all other items of Government expenditure, such as defence, the NDIS is funded from consolidated revenue and does not require a separate funding arrangement; and

(7) there is a better and fairer plan which would:

(a) only raise the Medicare Levy for those earning above $87,000 a year;

(b) reinstate the Budget Repair Levy for those earning above $180,000 a year; and

(c) ease the pressure on low and middle income workers, and be better for the budget bottom line."