|
senate vote 2018-06-20#17
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-30 10:22:32
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Senator Storer's amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>In accordance with the order agreed to earlier, it being past 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted for consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. The time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired and the questions will now be put. I will first put the outstanding questions that were before the committee prior to senators' statements. I will put the question on the amendments that were before the chair earlier today. I will then work through the questions on the other amendments circulated in respect of the bill. If any senator wishes to withdraw amendments they have circulated, they may do so by leave. Senator Collins?</p>-
- The majority voted against amendments (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15) on [sheet 8441](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6111_amend_2b85bd68-b0a0-4168-9f7f-d4c4a4f85664%22;rec=0), which was introduced by Senator [Tim Storer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/tim_storer) (Independent). This means they failed.
- Senator Storer [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.27.1):
- > *Given our substantial debt challenge—$341 billion net debt in 2017-18, and growing—it is irresponsible to proceed with the full income tax plan proposed by the government at this point in time. The measures commencing in 2022 and 2024 lock in over $120 billion in reductions in revenue out to 2028-29. By Treasury's own admission, uncertainties generally tend to increase as the forecast horizon lengthens; therefore, there are larger error bands around estimates three, four or more years ahead. The geopolitical and economic uncertainties noted by Treasury in budget estimates in May demand the government prepare by focusing on debt and deficit reduction as well as maintaining essential services. We are in a substantially weaker budgetary position now than we were in 2007 in the lead-up to the GFC. There's no need to rush these changes that commence in 2022 and 2024. They are well beyond the scope of the forward estimates and the next election. There will be ample time between now and then for parliament to re-examine the appropriateness of these measures and decide whether to proceed with the additional elements of the government's plan.*
- >
- > *History tells us that tax cuts, once legislated, are very difficult to wind back; therefore, we cannot rely on an assumption that these cuts could be repealed or amended if unforeseen economic developments materialised. In the context of a recent uplift in government revenue, the measures set to commence from 1 July 2018 are affordable. Given rising cost-of-living pressures and wage stagnation, the new low- and middle-income tax offset is particularly warranted and should be locked in to provide lasting targeted support to low- and middle-income earners beyond the forward estimates. With that extension, information received from the Parliamentary Budget Office indicates that the amended plan I am putting forward would cost $46.75 billion compared with the $143.95 billion for steps 1, 2 and 3 of the government's plan as it stands, and $102.35 billion for steps 1 and 2. The amended proposal I am putting forward of $46.75 billion generates savings that would help us return to surplus sooner, pay down debt quicker and free up money to spend on critical social and infrastructure programs, and I hope that it meets with the approval of the chamber.*
<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Mr President, in terms of the process you just outlined, what were the questions that you indicated you would put up first?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I'm about to read out the ones that were before the chair earlier today. I will now go through the amendments by sheet and by number as I put them to the chamber, starting with the ones that were already moved before the chair in the committee stage. The question is that amendment Nos (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15) on sheet 8441, moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to. Senator Collins?</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Just so that we can be clear—and I understand there's no debate, discussion or the like on the actual amendments—I think it's important for senators, particularly in circumstances where we don't have a committee consideration, to understand what the question actually is before us. The point you made earlier was that you were proceeding with those questions that had already been moved in the limited debate that we had—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The ones that were before the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>So, looking at the running sheet and comparing that with the revised running sheet—and thank you to the clerks for providing it—Senator Storer's amendments, the ones that have already been moved, are (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15). Senator Storer's amendment (1) is not being moved at this stage; is that correct?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The amendments that you just read out, and that I just read out, are the ones that had been moved and were before the chair in the committee stage earlier today. They are the ones that will be put first, and then I will work through a sheet that has been provided with other amendments that were circulated but were not before the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Mr President, for clarity purposes and also for Senator Storer, in order for us to understand which of his amendments are the ones he moved earlier, and for what purpose, it might be necessary for the clerks to actually read the amendments so we know what we're really dealing with.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I have just taken some advice from the Clerk, which confirms my past experience that, where amendments have been circulated in the chamber—and these were before the chair and well circulated—there is not a need to read them out. There is no doubt about what the matter we are dealing with is.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>The difficulty I have with the difference here is that the Clerk's advised you on how matters would be dealt with under normal circumstances, which is not what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with an artificial distinction between amendments that have been previously moved and the ones that haven't yet been dealt with. In the case of Senator Storer, for instance, he has only now started to understand that, in terms of the batching of his issues—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Collins, I was referring to my own experience of when the Senate has adopted this procedure that I am now bound by, which is to put these votes without debate or discussion. I've made a ruling in respect of there being no need to read the amendments out. I have allowed you to put your point. I've made my ruling. I'm now going to put the question, because that is what the Senate has directed me to do—to put these motions without debate or discussion. So the question is—and I'll read it again—that amendment Nos (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15) on sheet 8441, moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Mr President, just further to that, can I then clarify in respect of Senator Storer's amendments, for example, when in this process he would be moving amendment (1).</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>We will go through the other amendments in an order that I have been provided with. They will all be voted on by the Senate. Even if they were not before the chair, all the amendments will be voted on by the Senate in an order starting now.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>So, if they're on the running sheet they have been moved, but senators are able to withdraw if that's their want?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I will restate it and I'll make it very clear. The first set of amendments are the ones that were moved by Senator Storer earlier today and were before the chair at the time. Then we will proceed through other matters. But I'm going to put that question now. I'm not going to read them out four times every time. I'll do it again now. The question is that amendment numbers (3) to (8), (10) and (12) to (15) on sheet 8441, moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to.</p> -
-
|