|
representatives vote 2024-02-15#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-04-05 15:05:16
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail- Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 - Consideration in Detail - Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act 2024
Description
<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 February, the bill will be taken as a whole.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-02-15.20.1) introduced by Groom MP [Garth Hamilton](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/groom/garth_hamilton) (LNP), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the name of the bill.
- ### Motion text
- > *(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act 2024".*
<p class="speaker">Garth Hamilton</p><p>At the request of the member for Hume, I move opposition amendment (1):</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "<i>Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024</i>", substitute "<i>Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act 2024</i>".</p><p>This amendment would change the name of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill to 'the Treasury Laws Amendment (Broken Promise) Act'.</p> <p class="speaker">Government Members</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Garth Hamilton</p><p>I note the groans from those opposite. It gives me great pleasure to read an amendment raised by Mr Albanese, our Prime Minister, for the original stage 3 tax cuts amendment that went through. He moved that the short title of the bill be amended to read 'Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More of Their Money but Not for a Really Long Time) Bill'. So this is in keeping with that spirit of renaming amendments around the stage 3 tax cuts. I think it's very important that we maintain that, because, as we saw in the last election, Mr Speaker, integrity matters. It's important that things have the appropriate name, as the Prime Minister was so keen to point out when he was on the opposition bench.</p><p>Opposition members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Rishworth</p><p>How wonderful!</p> <p class="speaker">Garth Hamilton</p><p>I hear the interjections: 'How embarrassing!' How wonderful to move this, exactly the same as the Prime Minister, and then to hear the question: why would we do this? Well, I guess, if it's good for the goose it is good for the gander.</p><p>I'm reminded of a quote from the Prime Minister, which is that he promised to change the way politics was done in this country. Of course, we haven't seen that. What we've seen instead is a desire by this Prime Minister to break promises. This has been the best broken promise that we have seen from this Prime Minister so far, amongst a list of other broken promises. We can remember, of course, the promise to have cheaper mortgages. Well, that turned out to be a broken promise. We can remember the promise of a $275 reduction in electricity prices—another broken promise. And we saw my favourite promise, which was that groceries would be cheaper—another broken promise. How appropriate, then, to take the opportunity to provide that integrity to the Australian people—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</p> <p class="speaker">Garth Hamilton</p><p>and appropriately name what this bill is: a broken promise to the Australian people.</p><p>I'm reminded of a different pathway when you do change your mind on tax, and I offer this humbly. When you do change your mind on tax, there's always the option John Howard took when he changed his mind, which was to take the changed position to the Australian people and seek a mandate for that changed position. That's courage. It takes courage to do that. Of course, having done that—having stood by his decision and having taken it to the Australian people—he was rewarded by the Australian people with continued government. What a great comparison we have between the golden era of John Howard and, sadly, the leadership of today. Rather than take that changed position and seek a mandate, this Prime Minister has simply chosen to mislead the Australian people. He has misled the Australian people on over a hundred occasions. 'Yes, of course we'll keep stage 3,' he said, but when push came to shove he broke his promise. That is why it is so important to capture that today.</p><p>Of course, there could be another name. We could seek another name for the bill. Maybe it would be the 'Dunkley By-Election Emergency Bill'. Maybe that would be appropriate as well, seeing the timing of this and hearing the clear politicisation that we've heard from the government on this bill. How much legitimacy, how much integrity, can there be in making these changes when we hear the Prime Minister repeatedly challenge us to oppose them? If you really were standing by this, if you were seeking a mandate, how could you hold that position? This is clearly cheap politics and deserves to be renamed so that the Australian people can see what it is.</p><p>There's another great name we could have for this bill. It could be the 'My Word Is My Bond Bill'. I think that would be great, because everyone could get to remind themselves of the great promises made by this Prime Minister and that, when push came to shove, when the pressure came on, when it came time to actually stand by his commitments, he chose to break his promises to the Australian people.</p><p>I commend this fantastic change to the title. I think it's one of the clearest demonstrations we can make to the Australian people of exactly the character of the government, what their real position is when it comes to integrity, their intentions for how they're going to govern this nation and the continued broken promises we've seen. Maybe there will be more. Maybe I'll have another chance to rename a bill as it comes with the next set of broken promises, but for now I think this is the most substantial promise that the government made, and it deserves full consideration.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>This is indeed a great day! It is a great day on so many levels. This is a day on which every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut—all 13.6 million of them. The difference between this side and that side is that we want people to earn more and we want workers, all taxpayers, to keep more of what they earn. They want people to work for longer, for less.</p><p>I've got a bit of advice for the backbenchers there, including the member for Menzies—and it's not too late for him to have a rethink before he stands next. When a frontbencher gives you an amendment in their name and says, 'You move it on my behalf,' that doesn't show courage. That shows gutlessness. That shows cowardice. That shows them hiding behind their own backbench. It's unbelievable. I've been here since 1996. I've never seen this before. 'I move the amendment circulated in the name of Mr Taylor' is what it says. He's the shadow Treasurer. He's here. I say to the member for Menzies, 'Don't do it.' He's right there. If it's so good, put your name to it, Shadow Treasurer. Give a speech in favour of it. The second reading amendment you moved said this:</p><p class="italic">… the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax reform package that is in keeping with the stage 3 tax cuts …</p><p>A government member: That's rollback!</p><p>Rollback is back! I'll give the shadow Treasurer the big tip: if you vote against the legislation, the Morrison tax cuts stay. By voting for this legislation, you are voting against the position that you took to the last election. You're voting against the position that you took to the election before. You're voting against the position that we said in 2019 was a triumph of hope over experience, saying that you knew what the economy would look like in 2024. That was why we expressed our concern at that time. The equivalent would be for this Treasurer to introduce legislation saying what the system would look like in 2029. That's the equivalent of what they are doing.</p><p>For people who are voting for this legislation, they're pretty hostile to it. It shows their real position. They always will take every opportunity to oppose things for Middle Australia, to oppose things for people who need a hand up. Their idea of aspiration is people who go to a few of those schools, who get the leg up in life, who live a life of privilege. Our idea is to use government to create opportunity, because we understand that every Australian has aspiration, which is why our tax cuts change every single level of tax—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. There has been a lot of noise, but we're just going to dial it down for this and the remaining minutes.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>They're very loud and angry for people who are voting for this legislation—very angry. Why are they voting for it? Because they know that this package is a good package. This package doesn't leave behind people who earn under $45,000 a year. This is a package that provides extra assistance as well, through our changes to the Medicare levy. It provides for aspirations so that people on average incomes will get double the tax cuts. No wonder we don't hear any questions from them about cost of living. And bear in mind what this amendment is. This amendment is to remove the words 'cost-of-living tax cuts' from this bill, because they don't care about cost of living. They think they're okay. As long as they get double the tax cut, they're okay. Yes, politicians will get less from this legislation, but average workers will get more.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question before the House is that opposition amendment (1), circulated in the name of Mr Taylor and moved by the member for Groom, be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|