|
senate vote 2018-06-21#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-30 07:44:37
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Let another vote take place
Description
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 20 June 2018 relating to consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-06-21.4.2) to suspend the usual procedural rules, known as [standing orders](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/), in order to let another vote take place. It was introduced by South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor) and means that Senator Wong cannot move a motion about that bill.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter; namely, a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 20 June 18 relating to consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.*
<p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter; namely, a motion to vary the order of the Senate of 20 June 18 relating to consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018.</p><p>I am moving this motion in order to give senators the opportunity to suspend standing orders to debate a motion to, frankly, remedy what was passed yesterday in this chamber.</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>Yes, we will. I'll take the interjection from Senator Macdonald. We will keep trying it again, because we actually believe that the Senate should do its job. The Senate should do its job, mate, which is actually to seek to amend legislation and debate it, not to act like an arm of the executive. We were sent here to legislate, and yesterday the government, along with their mates Senator Rex Patrick and Centre Alliance, who appear to roll over—every time Senator Cormann asks Senator Patrick to jump, he just says, 'How high?' He's a Lib. He is nothing but a Lib. Senator Rex Patrick is nothing but a Lib who is happy to walk in here and do what Senator Nick Xenophon would never have done. Senator Storer put a statement out yesterday, and it was very measured, I would have to say, but it was also a statement which told the truth, which is that Senator Nick Xenophon would never have done what Senator Patrick agreed with Senator Cormann to do, and that is to do over the Senate. This is $144 billion worth of tax cuts that they don't want to debate. This is supposed to be one of the centrepieces of your economic plan, and you don't even have the spine to debate it properly. You come in here and you try an ambush in order to make sure the Senate can't debate amendments. What an extraordinary proposition—that we are sent here in this place, but we want 30 minutes debate on $144 billion worth of tax cuts! What I find extraordinary—</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>We find this extraordinary!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>The minister, who is a serial misleader of the parliament, continues to interject. But we'll come to you later.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order! Senator Wong, there is a point of order. I will call Senator Birmingham and then come to you, Senator O'Sullivan.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Mr President, that is a clear reflection upon another member of this Senate. Senator Wong obviously knows better than that and should clearly withdraw.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Mr President, as always, I will withdraw if you ask me to. The minister herself has conceded that she misled on five occasions.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>On the point of order, Senator Birmingham, in my view, and having had advice confirming it from the Clerk, that is not a personal imputation on a senator, but I will remind all senators that, particularly on days like today, we should step back from personal imputations or impugning other senators. Otherwise, today will get more difficult than it needs to be.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>The motion I am seeking to move to suspend standing orders—a motion the government doesn't even want to debate; pretty interesting, isn't it?—would enable this Senate to properly consider the message from the House of Representatives. That's all. From the roaring and the interjections that we saw just previously—and with Senator Macdonald and Senator Cash getting all hot under the collar again—you would think that we were talking about something outrageous. This is parliamentary democracy. There are two chambers. We pass legislation; they pass legislation. We get to consider the amendments that they've made or whether or not they've accepted ours. It's the parliamentary system. What this Leader of the Government in the Senate did yesterday was prevent debate on the message because he wants the political timetable, and that's what so objectionable about all of this. The motion moved was not because there was some time sensitivity or the government had to get it up today or there couldn't be further Senate debate because there had been hours of it, because there hadn't. We'd given up Tuesday night. There'd been, I think, 45 minutes of committee time or maybe a little bit more. It wasn't because we'd been filibustering or there'd been lengthy debate. Senator Mathias Cormann did over the Senate because he wants a political timetable, and that is objectionable. That is not the way this place should be run.</p><p>This is an important piece of legislation. We should be able to debate and amend what the House sends back. We accept, of course, that the government has the majority in the House; that's why they're on that side. But they do not have the right to prevent this Senate from debating and amending the message or the legislation which comes back from the House, yet that is what this Senate did yesterday. I'd implore Senator Hinch and others on the crossbench who may be against us on the tax cuts—I think you're wrong in policy on that and wrong in merit, but I accept that's your decision—why do over the Senate to enable Senator Cormann to deliver on Malcolm Turnbull's political timetable? There is no reason why this Senate should not have the opportunity to properly debate and amend the message when it comes back. No reason was put yesterday and no reason has been given. The only reason is the political strategy that Senator Cormann is desperate to deliver on for a desperate Prime Minister ahead of the by-elections.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government will oppose this suspension motion, and that is because the Senate has spoken on this matter. The Senate is in charge of its own destiny. Senator Wong may try to suggest that, somehow, I did over the Senate. No. The government put a proposition to the Senate which a majority of senators supported. A majority of senators want to get on with things. A majority of senators support income tax relief for all working Australians. And a majority of senators understand that Bill Shorten and the Labor Party wants to stand in the way of income tax relief for all working Australians. Let me read from an editorial in one of our daily newspapers:</p><p class="italic">It's official. The Labor Party has now forgotten—or is simply apathetic towards—the aspirational class of Australians that Labor treasurer Paul Keating created in the 1980s by modernising the Australian economy and creating opportunity for working-class people.</p><p>The Labor Party today is selling out working-class people. This is a government that is standing up for working-class people. We want to deliver income tax relief to hardworking families, and we want to ensure that working-class people have the best possible opportunity to get ahead in the future, by making sure that the businesses that employ them have the best possible opportunity to compete with businesses in other parts of the world.</p><p>We have a Leader of the Opposition who is quite happy to put businesses in the United States, France, the UK and all around the world at a competitive advantage over businesses here in Australia. He is quite happy to help businesses in other parts of the world take investment and jobs away from Australia, because that is the implication of the sorts of policies the current leader of the Labor Party is pursuing.</p><p>What we have in front of the parliament and what has been debated intently for some time now is a proposal to reduce income taxes for all working families around Australia, prioritising low- and middle-income earners but, yes, also addressing bracket creep. The Labor Party used to recognise that bracket creep is bad for families and is bad for the economy. Bracket creep is a drag on economic growth. The Labor Party knows this. The Labor Party is not opposing this because it thinks it's the wrong thing to do. The Labor Party is opposing this because it believes that its politics of envy, its undergraduate, socialist politics of envy agenda, will win it votes. We are pursuing policies to support aspiration. The Labor Party is pursuing the politics of envy because it believes that somehow that is going to help Bill Shorten get into the Lodge.</p><p>We continue to steadfastly progress implementation of our plan for a stronger economy and more jobs. We are very grateful to the crossbench for having overwhelmingly supported the government in relation to this. We're very grateful to the Senate, which determined its destiny in relation to this bill yesterday. This is just a traditional attempt at a repechage by the Labor Party. The Labor Party is not happy that the Senate yesterday decided to support the government.</p><p>Let me tell you, on the 188 occasions when the Labor Party in government, with Senator Wong as senior minister, guillotined—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>We never did this.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>She said, 'We never did this.'! Let me tell you, I had to vote on bills, on lots of legislation, on which we didn't have one minute of debate under Labor—188 bills were guillotined through the Senate. Fifty-three bills in one week were guillotined through the Senate—all amendments and all remaining stages in one vote—many bills without even a single word of debate spoken. The President was very generous to the Labor Party yesterday by giving the Labor Party way more leeway than President Hogg ever did. President Hogg never let us speak for even one minute to argue. Once we were in one of your 188 guillotines we were not allowed to say a single word. You took great pleasure in ramming 188 bills through, using the majority vote that you had with the Greens.</p><p>Let me just say that this is an important bill. Everybody in the community knows that this is all about Labor trying to stand in the way of income tax relief for hardworking families. Working Australians are grateful to those crossbench senators who have decided to support the government, to back up the government, in making sure that we can get this very important economic reform through the parliament in a timely fashion.</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Storer</p><p>The Senate is the house of review, and its job is to thoroughly scrutinise each and every bill brought before it. The motion moved by the government yesterday did eliminate debate on the Personal Income Tax Plan. It gave barely 30 minutes for debate on amendments to the biggest tax cuts in Australia's history, and it should not have met with majority support. It goes against the principles of accountability and transparency, which are of paramount importance and which were the key fundamental plank of the Nick Xenophon Team, upon which the Centre Alliance senators now sit in this chamber, so I am very disappointed in that action yesterday by them. It is still unclear what their position is. I believe that they should be very clear in terms of their support for stage 3 of the tax plan.</p><p>The crossbench in particular should be holding the government to account through ensuring enough time is given to debate amendments. I had proposed several amendments to the income tax bill that I did not have the full opportunity to speak to. My proposal, if I had had time to further discuss it, would have saved nearly $100 billion, compared with the government's plan, while still extending targeted tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, and these savings would help us return to surplus sooner, pay down debt quicker and free up money to spend on critical social and infrastructure programs. That's why I am speaking in favour of this motion. I urge all other crossbenchers to do likewise.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|