|
representatives vote 2024-02-15#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-04-04 18:55:09
|
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 (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living) Act 2024
Description
<p class="speaker">Bert Van Manen</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-02-15.26.1) introduced by Forde MP [Bert Van Manen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/forde/bert_van_manen) (Liberal), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the name of the bill.
- ### Amendment 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 (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living) Act 2024".*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024", substitute "Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living) Act 2024".</p><p>We've heard both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer wax lyrical about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, and certainly in the Treasurer's contribution just now he waxed lyrical about the cost of living. Well, my amendment goes to changing the wording of the title to 'Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts but Not Actually Dealing with the Cost of Living)', because what we're actually seeing in this legislation is nothing that's dealing with the cost of living. When we look at the cost of living over the past 18 months—with the price of food up by over nine per cent, housing by over 12 per cent, electricity up, insurance up, gas up—all those things do not include the 12 interest rate increases and the costs of people's mortgages. We are seeing nothing in this bill with the cost of living; $15 a week is not going to scratch the surface when people are at a minimum of $150 a week worse off. And if you take into account their mortgage cost, they're closer to $600 a week worse off.</p><p>Looking at some of those people in my electorate that the Treasurer and other members opposite have referenced in their contributions during the substantive debate, these ordinary hardworking Australians: a truck driver in the electorate of Forde on an average wage will get a tax cut of $804, but his cost of living has gone up by a minimum of $8,000 a year, plus the interest on his mortgage of $20,000-odd a year. So he's at least $600 a week worse off—for a $15-a-week benefit that those opposite are crowing about.</p><p>Let's have a look at an electrician in the electorate of Forde. They're $8,000 a year worse off in real terms—</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! I can't hear the member for Forde, because the member for Hume and the Treasurer are engaging in dialogue. So we just might cease that so I can hear from the member for Forde.</p> <p class="speaker">Bert Van Manen</p><p>Thank you, Mr Speaker. And it's instructive for those opposite to listen to this, because all the people they've said will be better off are actually worse off in real terms. For the benefit of $15 a week, people in my electorate—hardworking Australians, such as an electrician in Forde—will be in the order of $7,000 a year worse off, before including the additional costs on their mortgage.</p><p>A receptionist in my electorate working in one of the professional services firms will be in the order of $7,000 a year worse off. Also, those opposite failed to take into account in their earlier contributions the removal of the low to middle income tax offset. Nowhere in this debate have those on the government side really spoken about the cost of living. They have spoken about the tax cuts. But every example they've used in their answers to questions and in the debate do not reflect the totality of the situation for ordinary people on the ground. Ordinary people on the ground in my electorate of Forde, as a whole, because this government has failed to deal with the cost-of-living issues that I pointed out earlier, are not better off as a result of this bill. They are still worse off under this bill, because the cost of living has gone up so substantially.</p><p>We hear those opposite say regularly, at the end of every answer—and it's even been mentioned a couple of times today—that they want to see Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Well, can I say to those opposite, that is exactly what is not occurring under this bill, because the cost of living has gone up to such an extent that Australians are worse off now than they were when this government came to power 18 months ago. We see no evidence whatsoever of this government doing anything to deal with the real cost-of-living issues that everyday Australians are facing, and I urge support for this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Forde be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|