|
senate vote 2018-06-20#24
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-30 08:06:51
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Third Reading - Pass the bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>We now come to the last part of this chain of events. The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.207.3) to pass the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to [read the bill for a third time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(legislature)).
- ### What happens now?
- Since some amendments were added to the bill in the Senate, the bill will now return to the House of Representatives, where our MPs will decide on [whether they agree with the changes](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2018-06-21/4). If they do, then the bill will become law. If they don't, it will return to the Senate where our senators will decide on whether to insist on the amendments (which means the bill fails) or not (which means the bill will become law).
- ### What does this bill do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd115):
- > *The Government announced its Personal Income Tax Plan (PITP) in the 2018–19 Budget. The PITP reduces personal income taxes over the next seven years through a combination of changes to tax offsets for low and middle income earners and changes in income tax thresholds. The changes will be implemented over three steps, commencing in 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2024–25. The 2018–19 changes are targeted at low and medium income earners, with the changes in 2022–23 and
- 2024–25 applying to individuals on higher taxable incomes.*
- >
- > *The Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 (the Bill) seeks to implement all components of the PITP. The PITP will be implemented in three steps, commencing in the 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2024–25 income years.*
- >
- > * *Step one in 2018–19; introduces the new Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LAMITO) – a non-refundable tax offset of up to $530 per annum for individuals earning up to $125,333:*
- >
- >> * *the LAMITO will only apply in the 2018–19, 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22 income years*
- >>
- >> * *from 2022–23 subsequent changes to income tax thresholds will ‘lock-in’ these tax reductions for these individuals*
- >>
- >> * *the top income tax threshold for the 32.5 per cent tax rate will also be increased from $87,000 to $90,000 from 2018–19.*
- >
- > * *Step two commencing in 2022–23; increases the maximum rate of the existing Low-Income Tax Offset (LITO) from $445 to $645 per annum. The top income threshold for the 32.5 per cent rate will be increased from $90,000 to $120,000 and the top income threshold for the 19 per cent marginal rate will increase from $37,000 to $41,000 and*
- >
- > * *Step three commencing in 2024–25 will extend the 32.5 per cent tax rate up to taxable income of $200,000, abolishing the 37 per cent marginal tax rate entirely. The 45 per cent marginal tax rate will be retained, meaning income in excess of $200,000 will be taxed at 45 per cent, as is currently the case for income in excess of $180,000.*
<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>No, you skipped one.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>That's an unnecessary stage. I've been speaking to the Clerk about this.</p><p class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</p><p>Senator Wong, I have just been dealing with the Clerk about this matter and I've been advised that that is not necessary.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>So you're going to truncate it even more and not even have a debate on whether or not the bill should be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>No. If I could complete the reading out of the motion: I've taken advice from the Clerk, Senator Wong, and the question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with amendments. It is not necessary to have that particular motion in this chain of events—</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>This running sheet is what was circulated.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>We are already in an extraordinary procedure which has been following a document which has been circulated in the chamber. You are now seeking to amend that document, and I'd ask you not to. I'd ask you to simply proceed with the question. It may be a guide and you may know what you're doing, but—</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p><p>You may; who knows?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Wong—</p><p class="italic">Senator Cormann interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>You know you would have had the vote now if you'd—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Wong, please address me rather than Senator Cormann. This was circulated in the chamber. It is a guide and a courtesy. The rulings on procedure—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I am requesting 'that the bill, as amended, be agreed to' as a question.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>And I am advised by the Clerk that that is an unnecessary stage in this chain of events and the final matter remaining to be dealt with is 'that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed with amendments'. Senator Collins, are you raising a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Yes, I am. As a courtesy, given the clerks would have advised the construction of this document in the first instance and we've been given no notice of the change, I would ask as a courtesy that we continue to follow the program that we have had in front of us and we ask the next question.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>That is a courtesy document.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>It's unprecedented if you do that. You're politicising yourself.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Collins, really? I'm taking advice from the Clerk. I've ruled on the point of order and I've granted opposition senators latitude in this particular part—</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>There's no latitude on this.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Collins, can you remain silent while I'm ruling from the chair. I have granted the opposition courtesy to raise a number of issues in—</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>This is not courtesy. You should have told us of the changes.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Senator Collins, I was advised two minutes ago during the last division. Resume your seat while I finish ruling on your point of order. I have granted the opposition latitude during a part of the Senate where there was to be no debate or discussion. I am now putting this motion. The question is—</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Mr President, I didn't raise a point of order. I sought a courtesy on the basis that you are referring to Clerk's advice that has not been before anyone else here. There was no notice of it. I asked that the courtesy of following the program that has been circulated be followed.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I have ruled, Senator Collins. I have granted the opposition—</p><p class="italic">Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—</p><p>Really!</p><p class="italic">Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—</p><p>Senator Collins, you have been granted latitude today during a session of the Senate that was specifically—</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p><p>It is an order of the Senate that this matter be proceeded with without debate or discussion. You have been granted latitude—</p><p class="italic">Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—</p><p>Senator Collins, you should reflect on your opportunity to save face, given the accusations you have just made. The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I just wanted to get on record that, when we voted on items 12 and 13 of schedule 1 and the tables dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers and working holiday-makers, the Greens opposed amendment (8) on sheet 8341. But I would like to get on record that had we split those bills we would have said yes to 8449—amendments (1) to (10).</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Thank you. That is noted on the record. Senator Collins?</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>On the basis of that advice, I think we should have the vote recommitted.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I don't have a request for that from Senator Whish-Wilson. He has asked to put the matter on the record. He's been granted the courtesy to do that. The question now is that the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed with amendments.</p> -
-
|