|
senate vote 2019-07-02#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-08-21 13:39:03
|
Title
Business — Rearrangement- Business - Rearrangement - Suspend standing order 3(4)
Description
<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That standing order 3(4) be suspended, to enable the Senate to consider business other than that of a formal character before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's opening speech has been adopted.</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-02.15.1) to an [original motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-02.14.3), which means the amendment failed.
- ### Original motion text
- > *That [standing order 3(4)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/previouseditions/~/~/link.aspx?_id=27931B01FDC04E1B869483934608B676&_z=z) be suspended, to enable the Senate to consider business other than that of a formal character before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's opening speech has been adopted.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *Omit all words after "That", substitute:*
- >
- > *"so much of standing order 3(4) be suspended to enable the Senate to consider the following business before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's opening speech has been adopted:*
- >
- >> *(a) business other than that of a formal character (excluding government business); and*
- >>
- >> *(b) government business relating to the consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More Of Their Money) Bill 2019."*
- ### Text of standing order 3(4)
- > *3 - Address-in-reply*
- >
- > *(4) Only formal business shall be entered into before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s opening speech has been adopted.*
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">Omit all words after "That", substitute:</p><p class="italic">"so much of standing order 3(4) be suspended to enable the Senate to consider the following business before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's opening speech has been adopted:</p><p class="italic">(a) business other than that of a formal character (excluding government business); and</p><p class="italic">(b) government business relating to the consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More Of Their Money) Bill 2019."</p><p>In effect, this requires, firstly, that the government will ensure that the first order of government business will be the tax bills and, secondly, that the government will need the agreement of the Senate to proceed with other bills before finalising the address-in-reply, which I think on the last occasion took two years. I would make the point that the government has flagged medevac legislation.</p><p>An honourable senator: Hear, hear!</p><p>Hear, hear! This amendment would ensure that the Senate would have to give the government permission to bring in that legislation before it is debated and voted upon. I would also make the point—and this is something the Labor Party is concerned about—that the government today flagged via the Governor-General's speech industrial relations legal changes, which I do not recall them campaigning on in the election, for which they have no mandate. We do not intend to give the government a leave pass in bringing that legislation forward.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Firstly, this amendment is obviously seeking to determine the government's business on the agenda. It's always a matter for the government to set its business on the agenda. I can also say that our expectation is that Thursday will be fully occupied with dealing with our income tax relief plan, which we took to the last election and which the Australian people voted for, because we want to get more money into workers' pockets as soon as possible; we want to create more jobs on the back of the economy being stimulated with our income tax relief plan. That is the No. 1 and only major priority for this week.</p><p>I can also advise the chamber that there is absolutely no plan to—and we will not—bring the medevac legislation to the Senate this week.</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Senators</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I'm speaking on behalf of the government. The government will not be bringing the medevac legislation to the Senate this week. That is very, very clear.</p><p>The principle of the opposition trying to hijack, on the first day, the government's legislative agenda is breathtaking in its arrogance and in its inappropriateness. The government will be opposing the amendment, and I commend the unamended motion to the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>With regard to Labor's amendment, we ask that we vote on parts (a) and (b) separately. We want to ensure that this Senate is given the opportunity to address the address-in-reply, but we do have concerns that these tax measures are going to be rushed through this parliament on Thursday. We have concerns about this because this legislation hasn't even been before a thorough inquiry process. This is one of the most significant changes to the tax system that has ever been put before this chamber, and we think that it is absolutely critical that this go through a thorough and exhaustive inquiry process. There is absolutely no rush for this to be rammed through this parliament on Thursday night.</p><p>We would like to see an opportunity for those people who are currently considering this legislation—indeed, members of the crossbench and the Labor Party—to understand the implications of passing a tax cut that would redirect billions of dollars, $30 billion, to some of the highest income earners in the country. This is money that could be spent on raising Newstart; money that could be spent on putting a roof over people's heads and food on the table; money that could be invested in providing everybody with Medicare funded dental care; money that could be invested in public schools and hospitals; and money that could be invested in ensuring that no-one in Australia is homeless—that we build half a million affordable community homes.</p><p>We should be looking at what the huge cost associated with this budget measure is, what the alternatives are and what it will do in terms of economic inequality. We've seen some very rigorous analysis that indicates that it will turbocharge economic inequality in this country. This house should be afforded the opportunity to review this legislation and to ensure that we do our job in understanding the implications of one of the most significant taxation measures ever put before this chamber. It is absolutely incumbent on us that we be afforded that opportunity.</p><p>We have the same concern that the Labor Party has: that this motion as it is currently structured gives the government an opportunity to ram through other bills on Thursday if it so chooses, and we know what some of those bills may be, as we heard earlier today from the Governor-General. We don't think that there is any need to rush into massive tax cuts that turbocharge inequality and that rip revenue out of our budget that should be invested in the foundations of a decent society.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>Mr President, on a point of clarification: am I correct that the Greens intend to vote differently on items (a) and (b)?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I interpreted—and I am happy to be corrected by Senator Di Natale—that he has asked that (a) and (b) to be dealt with separately to allow them to vote differently on those clauses, and he is indicating that that is the case. I will put part (a) of Senator Wong's amendment to Senator Cormann's motion. The question is that part (a) of Senator Wong's amendment to amend Senator Cormann's motion be agreed to.</p><p class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</p><p>I've been looking at the wording myself.</p><p class="italic">Senator Cormann interjecting—</p><p>I was going to take it separately and that, if (a) fell, I would consider the introductory paragraph and paragraph (b) separately.</p><p class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>If I may assist the Senate: I understand the political point that Senator Di Natale was seeking to make, but voting on paragraph (a) in isolation is actually meaningless; it doesn't deliver anything.</p><p class="italic">An opposition senator interjecting —</p><p>I don't think this is an amendment that leads itself to be taken in two parts, because one follows the other.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I do take your point. I've been looking at it, Senator Cormann. Consulting the Clerk, I'm advised that they can stand separately because it would otherwise exclude—and I'm looking at the Clerk to indicate that I'm correct in my description here—the consideration of any business other than the address-in-reply.</p><p>I thank the Senate for its patience. I'll provide the advice that the Clerk just gave. Maybe we're all a bit rusty. If Senator Di Natale's indication was carried by the Senate, and paragraph (a) was carried but not paragraph (b), that would preclude the consideration of the tax bills. Senator Cormann.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I would encourage senators to look at the <i>Notice Paper</i>. We lodged a notice of motion today in order to ensure that the Senate can deal with our income tax relief plan on Thursday. Our intention is to provide the entire day—as much time as is required—to debate our income tax relief plan, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More of Their Money) Bill 2019, on Thursday. In fact, we are prepared for the Senate to sit until all stages of that bill have been dealt with, including any messages from the House of Representatives if and as required. So the easiest way to bring on debate of the income tax relief plan, and the income tax relief plan only, is by voting for the government's motion on Thursday morning.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I understand there is some complexity but I don't view this amendment as out of order, and the Senate can express its will as to its appropriateness by voting accordingly. The first matter I will put to the vote is that the introductory clause and paragraph (a) of Senator Wong's amendment to Senator Cormann's motion be agreed to. The question is that the covering clause and paragraph (a) of Senator Wong's amendment to Senator Cormann's motion be agreed to.</p>
|