|
representatives vote 2018-06-21#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-06-29 11:48:44
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018; Consideration of Senate Message- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of Senate Message - Put the motion
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p><p>I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments:</p><p class="italic">Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-06-21.18.15) to put the question. In other words, they wanted to speed things along.
<p class="italic">Senate Amendments (1, 2 and 3)</p><p class="italic">The amendments proposed by the Senate remove step three of the Personal Income Tax Plan. Step three of the Personal Income Tax Plan simplifies and flattens the tax system by abolishing the 37 per cent tax bracket entirely, reducing the number of tax brackets from five to four.</p><p class="italic">The Plan is a package that gives certainty to Australian families that they will keep more of what they earn in the future. It comprises three steps.</p><p class="italic">Step 1, prioritises low and middle income earners by providing tax relief of up to $530 to help with cost of living pressures.</p><p class="italic">Step 2, protects what Australians earn from bracket creep, ensuring that a pay rise, extra overtime or working more hours do not get eaten up by higher tax rates.</p><p class="italic">Step 3, by simplifying and flattening the tax system, ensures that, by 2024-25, some 94 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate no higher than 32.5 per cent based on projections.</p><p class="italic">High income earners will continue to pay their fair share with the tax system remaining progressive under the Personal Income Tax Plan. For example, a person on $200,000 would pay around 13 times more tax than a person on $41,000.</p><p class="italic">In 2015-16, the top 20 per cent of taxpayers paid around 61 per cent of all personal income tax. Under the Personal Income Tax Plan, this cohort is projected to continue to contribute a broadly similar share in 2024-25.</p><p class="italic">In 2015-16 those on the top tax bracket paid 30.3 per cent of all personal income tax collected. Under the plan those on the top tax bracket will pay around 36 per cent of all personal income tax collected in 2024-25.</p><p class="italic">The Personal Income Tax Plan delivers lower, fairer and simpler taxes to all taxpayers.</p><p class="italic">Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the reasons be adopted.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I move that the following words be added after 'adopted'—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p><p>Mr Speaker—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I'm in the middle of moving—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Treasurer can resume his seat for a second; I just want to hear what the Manager of Opposition—</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p><p>Members on my left!</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I move that the following words be added after 'adopted':</p><p class="italic">'That the House further advises the Senate in respect of the bill:</p><p class="italic">(a) that last night, in an act of gross incompetence, this government teamed up with Pauline Hanson's One Nation to vote in support of a bill which abolishes all income tax rates from 2024;</p><p class="italic">(b) this is just the latest act from a government, consumed by chaos and incompetence, which has outsourced all economic policy to Pauline Hanson's One Nation;</p><p class="italic">(c) for years One Nation advocated flat tax. Last night, the government adopted the policy and set the rate at zero;</p><p class="italic">(d) the—</p> <p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p><p>Mr Speaker, the House has disagreed with the amendments proposed by the Senate, so what motion is the Manager of Opposition Business trying to amend?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>He is moving an amendment to the question before the House, and that is that the reasons be adopted.</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p><p>Members on my left aren't going to get to hear the rest of the Manager of Opposition Business if they keep interjecting. I'm just allowing the Manager of Opposition Business to simply move his amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Yes, Mr Speaker.</p><p class="italic">(d) the government has also dealt with bracket creep by abolishing every tax bracket;</p><p class="italic">(e) the bill which was supported at the third reading stage by the government and One Nation—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the motion be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the motion be put.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p><p>Members on both sides will cease interjecting! I'm not going to have interjections of, 'He can't'. I'm going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Mr Speaker, there have been previous occasions when I have risen and where you believed I was rising on a point of order, and I have then sought to move a resolution. You have said, 'No, you were called for a point of order,' and have not allowed the motion be moved. I ask that the same rule apply to what the Treasurer just did.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I'm just going to address this point of order. I understand why the Manager of Opposition Business is moving this motion and, whilst I don't like bellowing interjections of advice, the <i>House of Representatives</i><i>Practice</i> is very clear on this matter. I'm prepared to say I can understand why it's confusing for some, if not for many.</p><p>I was hearing the Manager of Opposition Business move an amendment. The Leader of the House objected to that, but the Manager of Opposition Business is quite entitled to move that amendment. The Treasurer has now moved that the motion be put. The question before the chair is that the reasons be adopted. I will just read from page 308 of the <i>Practice</i>, which states:</p><p class="italic">'That the question be now put' may be moved while a Member is moving an amendment.</p><p>It can, and that is what the Treasurer has now moved. Now, to the Manager of Opposition Business on his point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The point of order is that you called the Treasurer on a point of order, and when I have been called on a point of order and have then sought to move anything, you have said, 'That's not allowed,' that if you're called for a point of order that's the only reason you get the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>No. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I don't mind saying that I wanted to hear the Manager of Opposition Business's motion. The Treasurer didn't jump on a point of order; he jumped to move the closure and, whilst I might have preferred to hear the rest of the motion, the Treasurer's quite entitled to do what he did. He's moved the closure and the question before the chair is that the motion be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Just to the point of order: does that mean the ruling now is that if we do jump, that even if you believe it was a point order and we're jumping to move a motion that will now be okay?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>No, the point is really quite different.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>It's different for them?</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>No! I'm not going to have that reflection on the chair. I'm really not going to have that reflection on the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>Speaker, that is what you have just ruled.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>No, what I have ruled is what the <i>Practice</i> states and what the rules are. It's very clear. I've tried to explain it as delicately as I can. I understand that while many members mightn't understand that procedure—I certainly didn't before I became Speaker—it's stated in black and white. You can move an amendment, and it can even be seconded, but, until that amendment is before the chair, the question is before the chair—in this case, that the reasons be adopted—and at any point the closure can be moved. I'm going to labour the point on this because I'm not going to have that reflection. <i>Practice</i> states:</p><p class="italic">… 'That the question be now put' may be moved while a Member is moving an amendment. If this is agreed to, the question on the original question is then put immediately. The motion for the closure of question may also be moved while the Member who has seconded an amendment is addressing the House and, once again, the closure applies …</p><p>I understand that's not widely appreciated, but it couldn't be more clear.</p><p>The Treasurer has now moved that the motion be put. That is the question before the House. This has existed for quite a period of time. I'm not going to go through all the precedents, but there are certain members who are very familiar with it. The question is that the motion be put.</p>
|