|
senate vote 2018-06-25#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-23 08:57:26
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Let a vote happen
Description
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the conduct of business in the Senate—namely, a motion that government business order of the day No. 3, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, be called on immediately and take precedence over all other government business until the conclusion of all proceedings on that bill.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-06-25.24.2) to suspend the usual procedural rules of parliament - known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/) - in order to let another vote happen. This means the motion failed and that other vote won't occur.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wong moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion that government business order of the day No. 3, the [Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5867) be called on immediately and take precedence over all other government business until the conclusion of all proceedings on that bill.*
<p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wong moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion that government business order of the day No. 3, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 be called on immediately and take precedence over all other government business until the conclusion of all proceedings on that bill.</p><p>What I am moving to do is bring forward the debate on the company tax legislation. The reason I'm doing that is that that is the bill the government claims has priority, that is the bill the country is focused on and that is the bill the Senate should be debating. The government has listed a whole range of legislation prior to that bill being debated. And we know why that is. It's because they want to give themselves time to try to do a deal with the crossbench. Let's be clear about it.</p><p>We on this side of the chamber don't support these company tax cuts and, if a number of the public statements from senators are true, then neither do a clear majority in this chamber. Senator Hanson has told Fairfax:</p><p class="italic">I have no intention of supporting corporate tax cuts.</p><p>And on Twitter yesterday she declared in a tweet that she personally signed:</p><p class="italic">One Nation are no chance of supporting company tax cuts.</p><p>Just this morning, Senator Griff told journalists that his party remain unconvinced. In an email to Senator Hanson's supporters today—maybe not today but recently—her office declared that Senator Hanson has announced that One Nation will not be supporting company tax cuts which include multinationals.</p><p>If what Senator Hanson and One Nation and Senator Griff, Senator Patrick and Centre Alliance are saying in public and to their supporters is true then there is absolutely no need to delay this debate for another hour. We should get on with debating the bill. If One Nation and Centre Alliance are serious that they don't support these unfunded and extravagant tax cuts, then they won't delay debate to enable more backroom deals. If senators do not support this motion, we can only assume one thing: that they are not being honest with the Australian people and are seeking to deceive voters in the July by-elections by saying one thing on company tax cuts now but keeping them alive so they can do a dirty deal in August, after the by-elections.</p><p>Can I say: unlike the government, we are not actually voting to gag this bill. We are voting to bring this bill on for debate. Last week we saw the government and crossbench senators vote to gag debate on a bill. We're saying that we're happy to debate it, so let's bring it on. I also make the point that the Senate has extensively debated this issue. We've spent seven hours and 40 minutes debating the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 and six hours and 13 minutes debating the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, so we've already spent 14 hours debating a policy that a clear majority of senators say they oppose.</p><p>We on this side believe that these bills are about an $80 billion handout to big business at a time when we have the budget in deficit, penalty rates being cut, wages failing to keep up with inflation and schools and hospitals being cut. Seventeen billion dollars of these tax cuts will go to the banks—the same amount that the government is cutting from schools. Let's remember what is also happening: by cutting out revenue sources down the track, this government is ensuring that a future government will be in the position of having to look to cut education, to cut health and to cut social security—even to cut defence, particularly if there is a downturn in the economy—turning off the tap in order to impose more spending cuts. These tax cuts, we believe, are deeply unfair and unaffordable. As Goldman Sachs and others have pointed out, the vast majority of these tax cuts would actually go into the pockets of overseas investors.</p><p>It's time for senators here to put up or shut up: are you being straight with the Australian people? If One Nation doesn't support this motion and if Centre Alliance doesn't support this motion, Australians are entitled to assume that these senators are not being honest with the Australian people. Australians can assume that these parties are seeking to deliberately deceive voters in next month's by-elections by keeping these tax cuts for companies and the big banks alive so that they've got the option of doing a dirty deal with the government when we return in August.</p><p>For that reason, the Senate should bring on this debate. We should debate these tax bills. The government say that they are the centrepiece of their economic plan but, instead, they've pushed them down the debating list because they want time to try and do another backroom deal. They're entitled to try and do a backroom deal but the Senate is entitled to say: 'No, we have a position. The majority of the chamber has a position that does not support billions of dollars going to multinationals and the banks.' We are entitled to bring on this bill and have a proper debate. I urge senators to support the suspension of standing orders to enable this debate to be brought on. Let's get on with debating this legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government will oppose the suspension of standing orders, because we are in favour of orderly management of the chamber. The government sets the government's business agenda. The next item on the government's business agenda is the very important passage of our appropriation bills. The appropriation bills are, of course, time-sensitive and they should be the next item that is dealt with.</p><p>I should also say: I'm very disappointed that my good friend and valued colleague, Senator Wong, would move to stop this debate at a time when only one Labor senator has spoken to this particular bill. Only one Labor senator has spoken to it, and that is Senator—</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>We're trying to help you!</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Oh, oh! Senator Collins says they're trying to help us! I'm sure you're here to help. You're from the opposition; you're here to help!</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>I don't want to be here Friday!</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Let me say again: it is absolutely true that the government is committed to this very important economic reform. The government is committed to making sure that workers in Australia are not put at a competitive disadvantage with workers in other parts of the world. We want to ensure—</p><p class="italic">Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order, Senator Collins!</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>We've got Bill Shorten here, standing up for the top end of town, trying to help the top end of town, at the expense of Australian workers. He's standing up for the top end of town in the United States; he's standing up for the top end of town in the UK; he's standing up for the top end of town in France, in Sweden—in just about every other country around the world where there are lower business taxes than here in Australia. He is working to help businesses in other parts of the world take business investment and jobs away from Australia. That is what Bill Shorten is trying to do. He is so desperate to assist the top end of town in countries around the world, to lock in their competitive advantage at our expense, that he will stop at nothing. He will stop at nothing.</p><p>We believe that it is incumbent on us as a government and it is incumbent on the Senate to engage for as long as is necessary to find a compromise on the appropriate way forward. I think the Australian people would take a very dim view of us here as senators if we didn't allow this debate to be conducted in an orderly and proper fashion, as set out in the government's business agenda. This is yet another example of the Labor Party playing games.</p><p>Anthony Albanese is spot on. Anthony Albanese is spot on when he says that the antibusiness agenda of Bill Shorten is bad for our country. This is another demonstration of the approach taken by the Labor Party under Bill Shorten. Under Bill Shorten the Labor Party now is antibusiness, antigrowth, antiopportunity, and focused on the politics of envy and class warfare, turning Australian against Australian. What the Labor Party seems to have forgotten—and what Bob Hawke and Paul Keating well understood—is that, with nine out of 10 working Australians working for a private sector business, their future job opportunities, job security, career prospects and wage increases depend on the future viability and future profitability of the businesses that employ them and pay their wages.</p><p>Bill Shorten is happy—</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>Senator Cormann, I will pull you up this time. It's Mr Bill Shorten.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I'll say it again. Mr Bill Shorten is running a politics-of-envy-class-warfare-antibusiness-antigrowth-antijobs socialist agenda, selling out the best interests of working families in Australia and working to lock in a competitive advantage for businesses in other parts of the world at our expense. Bill Shorten's approach to this is un-Australian. He's desperate to put businesses in Australia at a competitive disadvantage with businesses in other parts of the world.</p><p>We are working to protect jobs in Australia. We are working to protect wages growth in Australia. We don't think it is fair to workers in Australia that we would help businesses in the United States, France, Sweden, the UK, Canada, New Zealand—businesses all around the world. I don't think it's fair to workers in Australia that we would help businesses all around the world take investment and jobs away from Australia because we are imposing higher taxes on business in Australia than are faced by businesses in other parts of the world.</p><p>This what is the Labor Party used to believe. Mr Shorten used to stand for a lower, globally-more-competitive tax rate until he sold himself out to the union movement here in Australia, until he had to promise he would commit himself to— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>I rise to support the suspension, because it's absolutely critical that we recognise what we have at stake here. We have at stake one of the biggest, most extreme changes to our corporate tax structure ever proposed by any parliament in Australia. This is a change to the corporate tax regime that would take $85 billion from our schools, from our hospitals, from Newstart. It would mean that we've got less money to protect our environment at a time when we're losing biodiversity at a far greater rate than any other time in human history.</p><p>We have an opportunity here to debate this in a way that is thorough and orderly, as Minister Cormann said. But let's not repeat what happened last week when it came to the debate around income tax cuts. If Minister Cormann believes that that, in some way, was a thorough and orderly process, he's sadly mistaken. Last week we had one of the most significant changes to income tax ever in this country rammed through the parliament with no debate. We had gags supported by members of the crossbench, by Centre Alliance and the One Nation party. We had gags of suspension motions last week. That's not thorough. That's not orderly. We need to make sure we don't ever see a repeat of what we saw last week. Here's an opportunity, through the week, to debate corporate tax—not to have it lobbed in at a minute to midnight so that we have something rammed through the parliament in the early hours of the morning without it having been given the scrutiny it deserves—without members of the crossbench or opposition having been given the opportunity to move amendments to the proposed changes and to thoroughly scrutinise what's put before us.</p><p>We know from international experience that when corporate tax cuts of this magnitude have been introduced all they do is serve to line the pockets of CEOs and improve value for shareholders. They do nothing for ordinary working people. For example, we know that if you want to lift wages you don't cut income tax: you raise the minimum wage. This is why we're supporting a legislative increase to the minimum wage.</p><p>We've had 14 hours of debate on this package. That's right and as it should be. In this chamber we are discussing some of the most significant tax legislation ever put before an Australian parliament. We are saying let's bring this debate forward, let's have it through the week and let's scrutinise what deals may be done to secure the support of the crossbench senators. We still don't know what deal was done last week by Minister Cormann and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party in order to secure its support for income tax cuts. We don't know whether that deal extends to areas beyond the legislation that was being debated, because we didn't have time to scrutinise what was required to get the support of One Nation in order to get that package over the line. We can't repeat the mistakes that were made last week. That was a very dark day for this chamber.</p><p>We have an opportunity to do this properly. Senator Cormann said he wants to do this in an orderly way, but there's nothing orderly about what happened last week. There's nothing orderly about lobbing this in at the last minute and forcing the Senate to vote on something in the early hours of the morning without them having been given the opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise any changes or deals that may have been made. So we will be supporting the suspension. We hope that if the minister is keen to see the Senate do its job, that if the minister, as he says, is currently working with the crossbench to get their support—and they've indicated they're not prepared to give it—let's hear what the arguments are. And let's not be presented with legislation in the early hours of the morning, effectively, to hold a gun to the Senate's head.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|