|
senate vote 2014-12-04#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-01-30 15:01:58
|
Title
Description
- Almost every senator was against the main idea of the bill (in parliamentary jargon, they voted against [reading the bill a second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html)). This means that the bill has been rejected and won't be discussed any more.
- Only Liberal Democratic Party Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm), who had introduced the bill, voted in favour of it.
- ### Main idea of the bill
- The bill was introduced to reduce the [Family Tax Benefit Part A](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit-part-a-part-b) payments by 20% of any income in excess of the ‘income free area’ until the payment reaches zero.
- Currently, [the reduction is capped](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs986_ems_d6816788-c455-4698-9db5-b8b0c844b5d1%22) at a particular base rate so families whose income is more than the 'income free area' but less than the 'higher income free area' all receive at least that base rate. As Senator Leyonhjelm [explained](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2014-12-04.4.3), this means that "[t]he welfare payment for a family with one child remains at $2,204.60 whether their income is around $70,000 or $90,000".
- ### Why is only one senator voting 'aye'?
- Usually, [at least two senators](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#division-occur) need to call for a division in order for a division to occur. In this case, the Acting Deputy President had thought that there were two senators voting 'aye' and only [realised his mistake](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2014-12-04.12.5) after the division was called.
- ### Background to the bill
- The [2014-15 Budget](http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/index.htm) was designed to reduce government spending and start bringing the budget back to [surplus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance). However, many of the measures proposed in the Budget have been very unpopular and [have not passed through Parliament](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/budget-agenda-update/5934422).
The bill is an attempt by Senator Leyonhjelm to contribute towards reducing the current [budget deficit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance).- This bill is an attempt by Senator Leyonhjelm to contribute towards reducing the current [budget deficit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance).
|
|
senate vote 2014-12-04#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-01-30 15:01:24
|
Title
Description
- Almost every senator was against the main idea of the bill (in parliamentary jargon, they voted against [reading the bill a second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html)). This means that the bill has been rejected and won't be discussed any more.
- Only Liberal Democratic Party Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm), who had introduced the bill, voted in favour of it.
- ### Main idea of the bill
- The bill was introduced to reduce the [Family Tax Benefit Part A](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit-part-a-part-b) payments by 20% of any income in excess of the ‘income free area’ until the payment reaches zero.
- Currently, [the reduction is capped](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs986_ems_d6816788-c455-4698-9db5-b8b0c844b5d1%22) at a particular base rate so families whose income is more than the 'income free area' but less than the 'higher income free area' all receive at least that base rate. As Senator Leyonhjelm [explained](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2014-12-04.4.3), this means that "[t]he welfare payment for a family with one child remains at $2,204.60 whether their income is around $70,000 or $90,000".
- ### Why is only one senator voting 'aye'?
- Usually, [at least two senators](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#division-occur) need to call for a division in order for a division to occur. In this case, the Acting Deputy President had thought that there were two senators voting 'aye' and only [realised his mistake](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2014-12-04.12.5) after the division was called.
- ### Background to the bill
- The [2014-15 Budget](http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/index.htm) was designed to reduce government spending and start bringing the budget back to [surplus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance). However, many of the measures proposed in the Budget have been very unpopular and [have not passed through Parliament](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/budget-agenda-update/5934422).
The bill is an attempt by Senator Leyonhjelm to contribute towards reducing the current [budget deficit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance.- The bill is an attempt by Senator Leyonhjelm to contribute towards reducing the current [budget deficit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance).
|
|
senate vote 2014-12-04#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-01-30 15:01:11
|
Title
Bills — Family Tax Benefit (Tighter Income Test) Bill 2014; Second Reading- Family Tax Benefit (Tighter Income Test) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>I rise to oppose the Family Tax Benefit (Tighter Income Test) Bill 2014, put up by Senator Leyonhjelm to further target and reduce the entitlement of family tax benefit A recipients. I think the point needs to be made here that this is already a targeted payment. It is a targeted payment to medium- and low-income families. It provides those families with—</p> <p class="speaker">Honourable Senators</p>- Almost every senator was against the main idea of the bill (in parliamentary jargon, they voted against [reading the bill a second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html)). This means that the bill has been rejected and won't be discussed any more.
- Only Liberal Democratic Party Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm), who had introduced the bill, voted in favour of it.
- ### Main idea of the bill
- The bill was introduced to reduce the [Family Tax Benefit Part A](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit-part-a-part-b) payments by 20% of any income in excess of the ‘income free area’ until the payment reaches zero.
- Currently, [the reduction is capped](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs986_ems_d6816788-c455-4698-9db5-b8b0c844b5d1%22) at a particular base rate so families whose income is more than the 'income free area' but less than the 'higher income free area' all receive at least that base rate. As Senator Leyonhjelm [explained](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2014-12-04.4.3), this means that "[t]he welfare payment for a family with one child remains at $2,204.60 whether their income is around $70,000 or $90,000".
- ### Why is only one senator voting 'aye'?
- Usually, [at least two senators](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#division-occur) need to call for a division in order for a division to occur. In this case, the Acting Deputy President had thought that there were two senators voting 'aye' and only [realised his mistake](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2014-12-04.12.5) after the division was called.
- ### Background to the bill
- The [2014-15 Budget](http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/index.htm) was designed to reduce government spending and start bringing the budget back to [surplus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance). However, many of the measures proposed in the Budget have been very unpopular and [have not passed through Parliament](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/budget-agenda-update/5934422).
- The bill is an attempt by Senator Leyonhjelm to contribute towards reducing the current [budget deficit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance.
<p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Senator Lines, I am sorry to interrupt. There are a number of senators engaged in conversation. I cannot hear you, and I would ask that the senators remove themselves outside. Carry your conversations outside and extend the courtesy for Senator Lines to be heard.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The family tax benefit A payment is a payment provided to families to support their family budgets. If we know one thing in this place, we know that family budgets are already under attack by the Abbott government. We have seen the Abbott government wanting to put on a tax when you are sick and a tax if you need specialist care. We have seen the increase in fuel excise, which has hit people in the hip pocket. We have seen the cuts to how pensions are going to be determined into the future. We have seen massive cuts to health, and we have seen an attack on education in this country like we have never seen before. And yet we have this bill before us from Senator Leyonhjelm which further seeks to put a harsh and unrealistic burden onto medium- and low-income families. That is who is being attacked here.</p><p>If you look at the website, you will see that, to be eligible for family tax benefit A, you have to have at least a dependent child or a secondary student under 20. You have to be not receiving a pension, a payment or a benefit such as youth allowance. You need to be providing for your child 35 per cent of the time. And, of course, there is already a means test. So this is not like the Prime Minister's gold Paid Parental Leave scheme, which will benefit the wealthy in the country; this is a targeted payment to families who need that additional support to buy school uniforms, to buy books, to enable their kids to play sport on the weekend or to supplement the family budget. This is what family tax benefit A does.</p><p>I cannot believe that a senator in this place would introduce a bill that further reduces that entitlement—that further penalises Australian families. This bill is designed to tighten the income test, which is already fairly low. Family tax benefits are modest payments—they are not outlandish payments; they are modest payments—and they help low- and middle-income parents with the cost of raising children. I just cannot imagine why anyone would support this, and Labor certainly does not support this bill.</p><p>We are a party who support families, who recognise that families need this additional support, who know that come January, after Christmas and holidays, families struggle to provide the new school uniforms required by children, the books that are required in school, the new schoolbags and so on and so forth. Even buying boots for kids to participate in sport is a burden on families, and that is what this benefit is designed to assist with. Yet we see an attack in this place by a senator from New South Wales, our largest state. One assumes there are many families in New South Wales, whom Senator Leyonhjelm is supposed to be representing, who will be hit if this bill is successful. It just does not make sense at all.</p><p>There are about 1.6 million Australian families who receive family tax benefit part A, and that is who will be hit if this bill passes this place. In those families we have three million children. Is that who we really want targeted? Do we really and truly want to target three million Australian children? I don't and Labor does not, which is why we will not be supporting this bill. As I said, this comes at a time when the Prime Minister is still pursuing his very expensive paid parental leave scheme—although he has told us these 'barnacles' are supposed to be coming off before Christmas. I am not sure if the paid parental leave scheme is a barnacle. Certainly that is our view.</p><p>But this bill attacks honest, hardworking parents doing the very best they can for their children and therefore our country's future. That is what this bill does. It will reduce the payment. Imagine how families are feeling. We already have families and ordinary Australians carrying the burden of Mr Abbott's unfair budget. They are already carrying the burden and this bill will target them even further. It is an outrageous suggestion that anyone in this place could seriously contemplate supporting a bill which says to Australian families, 'You're on your own.' We already know that the Prime Minister and the Abbott government are saying to families, 'You're on your own,' and this bill takes it one step further.</p><p>I, along with many other Australians who pay taxes, want my taxes to support those who need a helping hand. I am proud that my taxes support our health system, our education system, our social security system. I am happy to pay more tax to enable that support to be there. To suggest that as a country we do not support Australians who need a helping hand is an outrage and it goes against what we are as Australians. We are a fair go country and it is a fair go to say that those in receipt of family tax benefit A are not the rich and wealthy in this country. They are deserving. They are hardworking. This bill seeks to attack three million children and I will have no part of it.</p> <p class="speaker">Catryna Bilyk</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>The question is now that the bill be read a second time. Those of that opinion say aye, against no. A division is required? Ring the bells.</p><p class="italic"> <i>The bells having been rung—</i></p><p>Senators, before we go to the count, I just want to clarify a bit of confusion. The motion was put. There was no division. Then the motion was put to read the bill a second time, on which there was the vote, the ayes and the noes. I thought I heard two ayes. I think I might have got that one wrong! I call Senator Leyonhjelm to tell it for the ayes—and this should not take long—and Senator Bilyk to tell it for the noes.</p><p></p>
|