|
representatives vote 2024-03-18#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-03-28 16:03:51
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-03-18.48.2) introduced by Hume MP [Angus Taylor](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hume/angus_taylor) (Liberal), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
Mr Taylor explained that:- Mr Taylor [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-03-18.48.2):
- > *These amendments seek to split the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 in order to deal with the PwC schedules separately to the [PRRT](https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/petroleum-resource-rent-tax) [petroleum resource rent tax] measure. The important point about this is that these issues are completely different. On the one hand, we have the PwC and Tax Practitioners Board issue, which rightly should be considered by this place. It's a very important issue in the integrity of our tax and tax administration system. On the other hand, we have the PRRT. These are completely different issues.*
- This amendment would have omitted the petroleum resource rent tax provisions from the bill.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.*
- >
> *(2) Schedule 5, page 32 (line 1) to page 38 (line 23), omit the Schedule.*- > *(2) Schedule 5, page 32 (line 1) to page 38 (line 23), omit the Schedule.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2024-03-18#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-03-28 16:01:09
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Petroleum resource rent tax
Description
<p class="speaker">Angus Taylor</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-03-18.48.2) introduced by Hume MP [Angus Taylor](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hume/angus_taylor) (Liberal), which means they failed.
- ### What do these amendments do?
- Mr Taylor explained that:
- > *These amendments seek to split the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 in order to deal with the PwC schedules separately to the [PRRT](https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/gst-excise-and-indirect-taxes/petroleum-resource-rent-tax) [petroleum resource rent tax] measure. The important point about this is that these issues are completely different. On the one hand, we have the PwC and Tax Practitioners Board issue, which rightly should be considered by this place. It's a very important issue in the integrity of our tax and tax administration system. On the other hand, we have the PRRT. These are completely different issues.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.*
- >
- > *(2) Schedule 5, page 32 (line 1) to page 38 (line 23), omit the Schedule.*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 5, page 32 (line 1) to page 38 (line 23), omit the Schedule.</p><p>These amendments seek to split the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 in order to deal with the PwC schedules separately to the PRRT measure. The important point about this is that these issues are completely different. On the one hand, we have the PwC and Tax Practitioners Board issue, which rightly should be considered by this place. It's a very important issue in the integrity of our tax and tax administration system. On the other hand, we have the PRRT. These are completely different issues. Only this Treasurer could think that these issues should be considered in a single bill.</p><p>This is how Labor does it. It's 'wedgislation', as they like to call it, where they put two things together that have no relationship to each other, and where they know those opposite to them will have a different view on the two things. There's a simple way to resolve that: split them. That's how you do it; it's not that hard. You just split it in two, and we can vote separately on the two different issues. But that's not the case for this Treasurer. We all have to remember that he's not interested in the policy; he's only ever interested in the politics. He likes to call himself Dr Chalmers, for a doctor he is, but he's not a doctor of economics; he's a doctor of spin, a doctor of politics, a doctor who plays politics every single day of the week rather than focusing on the issues that need to be focused on for the Australian people. It's the sort of thing that we've come to expect from this government.</p><p>It's important to understand what is in this PRRT legislation, because those opposite have brought a taxation bill to this place more than 15 times, having promised they weren't going to raise taxes before the last election. I am sure that there will be many more of these situations, because the one thing we know about this government is that whatever they say before an election is completely different to what they do after an election. That was certainly the case in this instance and has been the case on issue after issue in relation to taxation. We know their minister opposite here is going after unrealised capital gains. He sees superannuation as his honey pot—he told us so. It's not the honey pot of the person who invested in it. It's not the honey pot of the person whose money it is. It's the honey pot of the Labor Party and the union movement. But that's how they see it. We see cynical legislation—'wedge-islation'—in this place time after time after time.</p><p>We wrote over 100 days ago to the Treasurer and to the relevant minister, the Minister for Resources, asking that they answer some very basic questions about this PRRT legislation. The proportion of forward estimates revenue that is additional and the model impact of the tax on investment are crucially important. The Treasurer is relying on these projects for his budget, and he won't even tell us what the impact is going to be on investment and the medium-term costing of the measure. We laid out four very commonsense, sensible proposals for improving the prospects for the gas industry, and what we've got back from those opposite is little more than nothing. They are not serious about the future of the gas industry in this country. They are not serious about the strength of the economy in this country. The only thing they are ever serious about is their own politics and looking after their mates in the union movement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>We won't be supporting the opposition's amendment. It is worth noting for all members of this House that the effect of the amendment will be to further delay changes to the petroleum resource rent taxation arrangements. To understand that, we need to understand the history of these amendments. They started way back in 2014, when, under the former government, they commissioned Callaghan to review the arrangements. That review found, unsurprisingly, that they weren't fit for purpose. The government has made it a priority to ensure that Australian taxpayers get a fair share of the resources that are available for now and future generations, and that's exactly what this bill is designed to do.</p><p>In the name of splitting the bill, the net result of that will be to delay that taxation benefit to the Australian people—to delay the Australian people getting a benefit from the resources that we all own.</p> <p class="speaker">Angus Taylor</p><p>Why have you taken seven months to come back with it?</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>The member for Hume complains that this bill has taken seven months, but let's not forget: the original review was initiated—</p> <p class="speaker">Angus Taylor</p><p>That's pretty quick for you, Jonesy.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>by them back in 2014. So, if seven months is bad, is seven years something that deserves the condemnation of all members?</p> <p class="speaker">Angus Taylor</p><p>It's not our proposal. It's yours—it's your proposal.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>So that's a seven-year delay and a priority for us. I know there is some issue that has been raised by the member for Hume.</p> <p class="speaker">Angus Taylor</p><p>But seven months is good for you!</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Georganas</p><p>Order! The member for Hume will cease interjecting.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>The member for Hume raises the issue about bundling of these bills, and it is absolutely nothing new or controversial. It was a practice under them; it's a practice under us. For some further context, there are some 12 bills that are currently before the House, and collectively they contain about 40 different schedules. If we were to debate all of those as separate bills, the business of the House would quite simply grind to a halt. So this is about ensuring that we can maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the time before the House, and that's exactly why we are moving these matters.</p><p>Two things that require urgent attention are addressing the matters that were uncovered by the PwC scandal—there was urgent action by us and no action by them—and addressing the findings of a review first commissioned by the coalition back in 2014 and acted upon by us to ensure that we have the taxation regime that is fit for purpose. No, we won't be supporting a further delay to resolving these matters, in the interest of the Australian people.</p> <p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p><p>I'd like to speak briefly on this amendment. I don't think I agree with the coalition about the reason why they want to split this, in terms of the PRRT. We have different views on the role of the PRRT bill, but I 100 per cent agree with the point that the coalition is making, which is that these are two very distinct issues and this is politics. I'm new to politics; I've been here for less than two years. But this sort of wedging is exactly the sort of problem the Australian people have with politics as usual. This is about political points; it's not really about the issues of the day.</p><p>I think these are two really serious issues. One is about an absolute abuse of power that had a huge detrimental impact on Australian taxpayers, and it's a really a serious issue—enormous taxation. The other is about the future of, again, the Australian taxpayers in terms of how they are paid for offshore gas. They are two completely different issues. They shouldn't be in the same bill. There are other ways that the government is perfectly willing to use—guillotining debate and other things—when they want to get stuff done. They had the opportunity to do this. This is pure politics.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Hume be agreed to.</p><p></p> -
-
|