|
senate vote 2018-06-21#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-30 07:23:19
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018; Consideration of House of Representatives Message- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I seek leave to speak for approximately 15 minutes.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government will give leave to the leader of the opposition for five minutes on condition that no further steps are taken by the opposition to prevent a final determination of this very important matter by 11:40.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I ask that Senator Patrick explain why that condition has just been imposed when yesterday I was told by him and by Senator Cormann that leave would be granted to party leaders to enable them to speak. I've just been told I can only speak—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Chair, is this a point of order or is it just Senator Wong thinking she has the right to get up and have a chat whenever she wants to?</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Wong has sought leave. So the question is: is leave granted?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes, and without condition. It is unreasonable to require that a party that opposes tax cuts for high-income earners be allowed to speak only if we agree to support them, to support the bill. That is utterly unreasonable. I seek leave to speak for 15 minutes, and if leave is not granted I will move that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from speaking for 15 minutes in accordance with the deal that Centre Alliance did with the government.</p><p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Wong. The government has put its position on—</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>On the point of order: we are not forcing the Labor Party to support the bill. That is wrong. What we are seeking to achieve is for a majority of the Senate to be able to express its will and not to be frustrated any longer by a Labor Party and others who want to prevent the will of the Senate from being given expression. The government has granted leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for five minutes on condition that this can come to a final vote by 11:40, and we will grant leave to any other party leader or Independent on the same terms.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Well, I refuse to accept the condition. No leave is granted. The government is refusing leave to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to speak on this bill because I refuse to agree to the condition that I pass the legislation. It is unbelievable.</p><p class="italic">Senator Cormann interjecting—</p><p>Are you going to sit me down?</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Wong, you need to resume your seat. The government has offered leave and you are not accepting it on that offer.</p><p>I will speak, but I am not agreeing to a condition—</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>So five minutes—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Well, I will take the five minutes because I understand that the ruling is that I can't move to suspend to take 15 minutes.</p><p>The CHAIR: Just a moment, Senator Wong—</p><p>Can you please check—</p><p>The CHAIR: I now understand that the government is granting leave for Senator Wong to speak for five minutes. That's the proposition?</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Yes, on the condition that there are no further steps—</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>The CHAIR: Order! Senator Macdonald, I'm answering a point of order. Senator Wong, the Senate has already determined how this matter will be progressed, so there's no opportunity to suspend standing orders.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Well, the first point is that we were misled by Senator Patrick yesterday, because we were told that leave would be given to party leaders to speak. I've now been given five minutes—after a fight—on a bill for $144 billion. Can I just say this: today we are seeing the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Centre Alliance and others voting for an income tax cut that will benefit those earning over $200,000 a year. Do you know what? Senator Patrick, you're voting to give yourself a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Hinch, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Anning, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Burston, a $7,000 tax cut; Senator Bernardi, a $7,000 tax cut; and Senator Leyonhjelm, a $7,000 tax cut. And Senators Hanson and Georgiou, you're voting to give yourselves a $7,000 tax cut.</p><p>Government senators interjecting—</p><p>The CHAIR: Order! Senator Wong has the right to be heard in silence. I ask members of the chamber to be respectful.</p> <p class="speaker">Barry O'Sullivan</p><p>Madam Chair, there has been an identifiable deterioration in the language being directed at the crossbench yesterday and today with respect to this debate.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan, that's not a point of order. Please resume your seat.</p><p>I will rise to my feet every time it's done and make a point of order. I was trying to make a point that you might be able to advise the chamber in relation to their language.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan, I have asked you to resume your seat. I have ruled there is no point of order. Thank you. Resume your seat.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>So all of those senators over there have voted to give themselves a $7,000 tax cut. What we wanted to do—and we had the support of the majority of the Senate yesterday morning—was to proceed with the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners but to not proceed with the tax cuts for higher income earners which are to come into place in 2024. All of the debate that we have seen and all of the procedural straitjackets that Senator Cormann has been engaging in have been because he doesn't want to debate what is unsustainable, and that is an argument that low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts should be held hostage to tax cuts for high-income earners in 2024.</p><p>Let's be clear on what Senator Hanson and others have done today. What she ought to know is that the tax cuts that she is now voting for by agreeing with this motion, agreeing with what's before the chamber, will ensure that the people of Wentworth do very well and the people of Longman do very badly. What you need to know is that in Longman the number of people who are earning over $200,000 is 703. Guess how many in Wentworth: over 10,000. Well done, Senator Hanson: you've delivered to Point Piper! Well done, Senator Hanson: you've delivered to Malcolm Turnbull's electorate! But bad luck for the burghers of Longman, because you have ensured that tax cuts which overwhelmingly benefit high-income earners, people earning over $200,000 a year—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>And Penny Wong.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I'll take the interjection. He says, 'And Penny Wong'. I'm voting against it, mate. Why don't you? That's a great interjection! What an outstanding interjection from Senator Macdonald!</p><p>I make this point: what we have seen over these last 24 hours is a government desperate on a political strategy, a government desperate to try and hold low- and middle-income earners' tax cuts, which they deserve, hostage to high-income tax cuts. Senator Patrick, more fool you that you've copped it. You have come in here on the morning and said, 'Yes, I want stage 3 out,' and then voted for every single stage of a procedural straitjacket to ensure that amendment could not be insisted on and furthermore, could not even be debated. What sort of senator does that? At least have the courage of your convictions. Stand up and debate it. What you've done is ensure they don't even have to debate an amendment that you supported 24 hours ago. What sort of senator does that, Senator Patrick?</p><p>What is extraordinary about this is that all that we would have needed to ensure that the tax cut for low-income earners proceeded and the tax cuts in stage 3 that overwhelmingly benefited those above $200,000 were removed would have been the same tied vote that we had yesterday. If Senator Patrick and Senator Griff had simply had the courage of their convictions, if Senator Hanson had decided to deliver to Longman rather than Wentworth, that's all we would have needed to ensure that Mr Turnbull's political strategy of holding tax cuts for low- and middle-income Australians hostage to high-income earners could not have been delivered. But instead, in this Senate, the Centre Alliance and Senator Hanson have fallen over themselves to deliver to high-income Australia and to Malcolm Turnbull's political strategy. That is all they have done. I urge the Senate not to support the motion from Senator Cormann, who is now rising to his feet. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Chair, I'm enjoying the speech by the Leader of the Opposition so much that, if she seeks leave to speak for 10 more minutes, the government will grant it.</p><p class="italic"> <i>(Extension of time granted)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-21.27.1):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- In other words, they voted to speed things along by ending debate and instead vote on the [question under discussion](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2018-06-21/6) immediately.
-
-
|