Bill
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016
passed, as at 2016-12-02. Immigration and Border Protection portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Immigration and Border Protection
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2016-11-28
- second reading — 2016-11-28
- second reading — 2016-11-29
- second reading — 2016-11-29
- third reading — 2016-11-29
- introduced — 2016-11-30
- second reading — 2016-11-30
- second reading — 2016-11-30
- second reading — 2016-11-30
- third reading — 2016-11-30
- passed — 2016-11-30
- royal assent — 2016-12-02
Divisions
- Anthony Albanese I seek leave to move the following motion: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler from moving immediately—That: (1) government business order of the day No. 2, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 be discharged; and (2) the reintroduction of a bill relating to the Passenger Movement Charge not be permitted unless it does not contravene well established Parliamentary practice by purporting to bind future Parliaments. Leave not granted. I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler from moving immediately—That: (1) government business order of the day No. 2, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 be discharged; and (2) the reintroduction of a bill relating to the Passenger Movement Charge not be permitted unless it does not contravene well established Parliamentary practice by purporting to bind future Parliaments. Mr Speaker, the motion that I am seeking to suspend standing orders in order to move here today is consistent with your statement to the House earlier this morning, where you pointed out the fact that it is within the parameters of this parliament to make laws at any time. Indeed, the passenger movement charge increase of $5 that is provided for by the bill that is before the House does just that. Given the fact that the government itself promised, prior to the 2 July election, that there would be no increase in the passenger movement charge, it is, frankly, absurd that this parliament would consider legislation that purports to bind not just this parliament but the next parliament as well, for the next five years, to not have an increase in the passenger movement charge. The fact is this: an increase in the passenger movement charge bears no relation to the issue of the appropriate level of taxation for backpackers who work in Australia. That is why, earlier today, we moved to separate the bills. It is al — 2016-11-29, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 69, noes 77
- Anthony Albanese I move: That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House: (1) declines to give the bill a second reading as the existence of this Bill is policy-on-the-run in that: (a) an increase in the Passenger Movement Charge bears no relation to the issue of the appropriate level of taxation for backpackers who work in Australia; (b) an increase in the Passenger Movement Charge was not part of the original package in the May 2015 Budget; (c) over sixteen months later, in September 2016, the Government announced further changes to the package and randomly added a $5 increase to the Passenger Movement Charge to fund other unrelated policy decisions; (d) the increase in the Passenger Movement Charge was done without any consultation with the sectors affected – including airlines, cruise ship companies, tourism operators, and tourism peak organisations. (e) the Treasurer indicated in a media conference on November 8 that he would simply seek to double the $5 increase to $10 if other unrelated elements of the package failed; and (f) the increase in the Passenger Movement Charge has real consequences for tourism and will have jobs impacts in the tourism industry, which employs a million Australians, is Australia's largest services export and has been nominated as one of Australia's five super growth sectors; and (2) notes further that the handling of the Passenger Movement in the Parliament has been chaotic in that: (a) no modelling of the economic and jobs impact of this measure accompanies the Bill before the Parliament; (b) this increase breaks an election commitment from the Government not to increase the Charge; (c) this Bill directly contradicts the statement of the Minister for Tourism, who told the Parliament on August 31 that previous increases in the Passenger Movement Charge would choke "the golden goose that is Australia's tourism industry"; (d) the increase failed in the Senate last week after the Go — 2016-11-29, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 69, noes 79
- Tony Smith The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Bill read a second time. — 2016-11-29, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 80, noes 69
- Mathias Cormann I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in _Hansard_. Leave granted. _The speech read as follows—_ The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 gives effect to the Government's commitment that the rate of the passenger movement charge of $60 applying from 1 July 2017 will not increase for a minimum period of five years from this date. This commitment was made to One Nation Senators during passage of the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016 which was passed by the Senate last week. That Bill increased the passenger movement charge from $55 to $60 from 1 July 2017. This is the first time the passenger movement charge has been increased since 2012. The $5 increase is broadly in line with the increase in the consumer price index between 2012 and 2017. Stephen Parry The question is that the bill be now read a second time. — 2016-11-30, Senate: affirmative, ayes 33, noes 32
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act