|
representatives vote 2024-02-15#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-04-04 19:04:25
|
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 (Entrenching Bracket Creep) Act 2024
Description
<p class="speaker">Keith Wolahan</p><p>I move opposition amendment (2), circulated in the name of Mr Taylor:</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-02-15.23.1) introduced by Menzies MP [Keith Wolahan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/menzies/keith_wolahan) (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the name of the bill.
- ### Motion text
- > *(2) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 ", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Entrenching Bracket Creep) Act 2024".*
<p class="italic">(2) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 ", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Entrenching Bracket Creep) Act 2024".</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The member for Menzies has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Keith Wolahan</p><p>While I am on my feet and the Prime Minister is here, can I congratulate you on your wonderful news last night.</p><p>Before I moved this amendment, an amendment was moved by the member for Groom in the name of Mr Taylor, and we recently divided on it. And it was moved because, of course, we recognise that Australians are hurting. Of course we recognise that they need more money in their pockets. That is why we are supporting this amendment. Let's take that off the table; that's not what these amendments are about. I heard all the interjections that were made. But how this change is done matters and the timing of it matters. We know that the timing was about politics and the Dunkley by-election.</p><p>This amendment (2) is about a key feature of our tax system that is hurting everyday Australians: entrenching bracket creep. Bracket creep has been described by the shadow Treasurer as 'the thief in the night'. It is a thief in the night because it is a thief that comes for every hardworking Australian.</p><p>A lot of things happened with the government over summer. During the government's first summer, the Treasurer decided to reinvent capitalism. This summer the Treasurer thought, 'I'll leave reinventing capitalism and I will turn my mind to changing the narrative that our party'—your party—'doesn't represent working Australians anymore.' There was a real question about that last year. The question put before the Treasurer was: how can we re-engage with the 80 per cent of our electorates who didn't agree with us on the Voice? You're out of touch with your own electorates. That is what is driving this change.</p><p>When we speak about aspiration, it's more than just a word or a talking point; it is something that resides in our hearts and minds. All of us in this place go to citizenship ceremonies and welcome new Australians to this country. The thing that drives them here is aspiration for a better life for them, their children and their families. At the moment, housing affordability has made this a key topic of conversation around dinner tables. In Melbourne, where I'm from, there are 354 suburbs. A household on a median income can afford a house in zero suburbs—zero. In 200 of those 354 suburbs, to afford the median house you need a household income of $200,000. So the original reform that was put forward, removing the 37 per cent tax bracket, wasn't just about giving more money to people in those brackets; it was about telling young Australians who aspire to be in those brackets, 'We want you to take that second job, do that extra shift or otherwise work harder so that you will have a better future for yourself and your family and you too can own a little bit of Australia, particularly in the cities of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.' When we put extra brackets back into the system—and that's what the 37 per cent is—we're putting a brake on aspiration and we're telling young Australians, 'You may not be in that bracket now, but that thief in the night will come for you and your family, and the idea of homeownership is that little bit further away.'</p> <p class="speaker">Jim Chalmers</p><p>You're voting for it.</p> <p class="speaker">Keith Wolahan</p><p>The Treasurer has interjected saying that we're voting for it. Of course we are. But you're not in the opposition anymore; you are in the government. Where is your actual proposal for tax reform?</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</p> <p class="speaker">Keith Wolahan</p><p>New governments get a chance. You get some capital to change this nation in a way that governments can't later on. You spent that capital on the Voice. You should have spent it on actually reducing the cost of living and tax reform.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. There's far too much noise.</p> <p class="speaker">Jim Chalmers</p><p>Today the working people of this country are one step closer to a bigger tax cut to help with the cost of living. This bill is all about backing in the hard work of the truckies, the nurses, the teachers, the police officers, the steelworkers, the plumbers, the sprinkler fitters and the early educators. Thirteen point six million Australian workers will get a tax cut because of this legislation. Unlike those opposite, we will be voting for these changes enthusiastically because we believe that, when people work hard to provide for their loved ones, they should be able to get ahead. We believe that people should be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We reject the approach taken by those opposite, who say that the only way to prosper as a country is for the Australian working people to work longer and for less pay, and that's what this bill, at its very core, is all about.</p><p>The Australian people are closer to getting a tax cut because of this legislation before the House today. Now, if those opposite are supporting these tax cuts, they have a funny way of showing it. We heard once again from the member a moment ago and his mate before him. They're going out of their way to bag these tax cuts and they want the Australian people to believe that they support them. Of course they don't, because they are abandoning Middle Australia in opposition just like they abandoned them in government for the best part of a decade.</p><p>I want the whole House to know that the effect of the amendment moved by those opposite is to take the words, 'cost of living' out of title of the bill. I mean, oops. Did they really think that through, to take 'cost of living' out of the name of the bill? They don't just want to take 'cost of living' out of the name of the bill; they dare not mention 'cost of living' all week, not in question time, not in the name of this bill, not in the questions they ask or the speeches they give, and that's because they couldn't give a stuff about the cost-of-living pressures that Australian people are facing. We know that because the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, when asked about rolling back the tax changes, said, 'That is absolutely our position.' So if they're supporting these tax cuts, they have got a funny way of showing it. After all of the hyperventilating and all of the red-faced incoherence that we've heard from those opposite, they want the Australian people to believe that they support our tax changes. Of course they don't. They might be voting for it, they might have been dragged to this kicking and screaming, they might vote for it reluctantly in a few minutes, but we know what they really think about the working people of this country.</p><p>So I say to the member for Menzies, the member for Groom: ordinarily, when you're asked to speak to an amendment moved by a frontbencher, usually it's because the frontbencher is not available. Now, the frontbencher is right there. He might not be up to it, he might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but he's available. He's right there in the front row. So when the shadow Treasurer gives you an amendment to move and says, 'I'm available to speak to it but I don't want to,' that should ring the alarm bells for the member for Menzies and the member for Groom. Have a yak with the member for Forde; he's been around a little bit longer and he'll give you the heads up.</p><p>We on this side support these tax changes enthusiastically. We're very proud that every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut because of the changes that we are putting through the House today, and 11½ million Australians will get a bigger tax cut to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that we understand, even if those opposite don't.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question before the House is that opposition amendment (2), moved but the member for Menzies, be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|