Bill
Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018
passed, as at 2018-06-21. Treasury portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Treasury
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2018-05-09
- second reading — 2018-05-09
- second reading — 2018-05-22
- second reading — 2018-05-23
- second reading — 2018-05-23
- committee — 2018-05-23
- third reading — 2018-05-23
- introduced — 2018-06-18
- second reading — 2018-06-18
- second reading — 2018-06-19
- second reading — 2018-06-20
- second reading — 2018-06-20
- committee — 2018-06-20
- third reading — 2018-06-20
- other — 2018-06-21
- other — 2018-06-21
- passed — 2018-06-21
- royal assent — 2018-06-21
Divisions
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-05-23.98.2) introduced by Labor MP [Chris Bowen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mcmahon/chris_bowen) (McMahon), which means it failed. ### Motion text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > *"whilst not declining to give [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6111) a [second reading](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html), the House calls on the Government to:* > *(1) amend the bill to separate the measures which implement personal income tax relief from 1 July 2018, so that these measures can be passed by the Parliament without delay;* > *(2) introduce new legislation implementing the remainder of the measures in the bill only when further financial information, including year-on-year costs of each step of the Government’s full seven-year personal income tax scheme, is made available to the Parliament; and* > *(3) support the Opposition’s personal income tax plan to deliver bigger, better and fairer tax relief to Australians.* — 2018-05-23, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 60, noes 69
- The majority voted against [amendments (1) to (7) and (12) to (23)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-05-23.108.1) moved by Labor MP [Chris Bowen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mcmahon/chris_bowen), which means they failed. Bowen MP explained that: > *The amendments that I just moved will effectively split this bill. Those elements that start on 1 July this year would remain and those elements that start on 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2024 would be removed. It is, frankly, good governance to allow both houses of parliament, and this House in particular, to vote on each tranche on its own merits.* ### What does this bill do? The [bill was introduced to](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6111): * *introduce a low and middle income tax offset to reduce the tax payable by low and middle income earners that are Australian residents in the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years;* * *merge the low and middle income offset and the current low income tax offset into a new low income tax offset from the 2022-23 financial year; and* * *progressively increase the income tax rate thresholds in the 2018-19, 2022-23 and 2024-25 financial years.* — 2018-05-23, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 63, noes 69
- The majority voted against [amendments (8) to (11)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-05-23.112.1) moved by Labor MP [Chris Bowen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mcmahon/chris_bowen), which means they failed. These amendments were related to the Labor Party's policy for "bigger and better personal income tax cuts" from 1 July 2019. ### What does this bill do? The [bill was introduced to](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6111): * *introduce a low and middle income tax offset to reduce the tax payable by low and middle income earners that are Australian residents in the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years;* * *merge the low and middle income offset and the current low income tax offset into a new low income tax offset from the 2022-23 financial year; and* * *progressively increase the income tax rate thresholds in the 2018-19, 2022-23 and 2024-25 financial years.* — 2018-05-23, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 61, noes 70
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-19.287.1) to the usual second reading motion, which is that the bill be read a second time (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the original motion will remain unchanged. ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate notes that the bill:* > > *(a) significantly reduces the progressive nature of the income tax system;* > > *(b) does not target low income earners, who are most affected by bracket creep;* > > *(c) does not improve the living standards of those who are unable to find work;* > > *(d) will not help reduce inequality; and* > > *(e) locks in tax cuts that:* > >> *(i) are premised on economic forecasts that have a high degree of uncertainty; and* >> >> *(ii) in 7 years' time, will constrain a future government's capacity to provide public services and to invest in public infrastructure".* — 2018-06-20, Senate: negative, ayes 30, noes 37
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Raise minimum wage, Newstart and Youth Allowance — 2018-06-20, Senate: negative, ayes 8, noes 59
- The same number of senators voted for and against leaving unchanged the the tables dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers and working holiday-makers for the 2024-25 year of income or a later year of income. This means that the motion failed and the tables did not get enough support from the Senators. This vote was put after the [Opposition proposed](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.25.1) that these table be apposed. — 2018-06-20, Senate: negative, ayes 34, noes 36
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.128.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Mathias Cormann](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/mathias_cormann) (Liberal). In effect, it would speed up consideration of the [Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6111) and therefore limit debate. ### Motion text > *That:* > > *(a) government business order of the day no. 1 (Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018) be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be until 6.30 pm today;* > > *(b) paragraph (a) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and* > > *(c) on the reporting of any messages from the House of Representatives relating to the bill, the message be considered immediately in committee of the whole and any questions on the remaining stages of the bill be put immediately without amendment or debate.* — 2018-06-20, Senate: affirmative, ayes 37, noes 31
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Senator Storer's amendments — 2018-06-20, Senate: negative, ayes 31, noes 38
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.190.1) to keep sections 61-110 and 61-115 in item 1 and item 5 and part 3 of [schedule 1](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6111_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6111_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0) as they are. In other words, they voted that those parts "stand as printed". This division was put after the Labor party [proposed](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6111_amend_e8de06e6-6157-43e2-b230-d3955c1c3efb%22;rec=0) that those parts should be opposed. — 2018-06-20, Senate: affirmative, ayes 37, noes 31
- The majority voted against amendments (1), (3), (4), (6) and (8) to (11) on [sheet 8449](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6111_amend_e8de06e6-6157-43e2-b230-d3955c1c3efb%22;rec=0), amendments (2), (13), (15), (17) and (19) on [sheet 8449](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6111_amend_e8de06e6-6157-43e2-b230-d3955c1c3efb%22;rec=0) and amendments (1) to (3), (5), (7), (9) and (10) on [sheet 8450](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6111_amend_b5916d2c-7d59-4611-861b-38c50fd5bb85%22;rec=0), which means they failed. All of these amendments were introduced by South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor). These amendments were on the subject of the Low Income Tax Offset, the section 159N rebate and the proposed tax rates more generally, however there was no time given during the Committee stage to discuss them in any detail. — 2018-06-20, Senate: negative, ayes 32, noes 38
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Low and Middle Income Tax Offset — 2018-06-20, Senate: negative, ayes 22, noes 46
- The majority voted in favour of keeping items 12 and 13 of [schedule 1](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6111_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6111_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#2d293c2021494e159b5a794af1ecd385) and the tables dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers, non-resident taxpayers and working holiday-makers for the 2022-23 or the 2023-24 year of income as they are. This means that they will 'stand as printed'. This vote took place after South Australian Senator [Penny Wong](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/penny_wong) (Labor) voted to oppose all those parts. Senator Wong [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.20.2): > *These are the tax rates that the government is seeking to change from 2024-25. What I would say to members of the crossbench and senators in this place is that we have two objections to this. One is a fundamental policy objection. It is a fiscal risk. It locks in a very fast-growing program which costs not only billions of dollars a year but grows at 12 per cent, which has consequences both for the budget and for economic and fiscal risk. It is also a fundamental restructure of our tax system. As I referred, one of the academics who made submissions to the Senate committee talked about this as being contrary to essentially 100 years of progressive taxation in this country. It is the wrong thing to do. I make the third point that it was well made by [Senator Storer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/tim_storer) in his very careful and considered speech on the second reading that there is no reason to allow the government to hold these tax cuts, which would occur in six years time—you would have to elect Malcolm Turnbull twice—and make them a pre-condition of tax cuts which can be delivered next month. That is nothing other than a political strategy. As Senator Storer said:* > >> *There is — 2018-06-20, Senate: affirmative, ayes 45, noes 23
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - In committee - Changes to tax rates — 2018-06-20, Senate: negative, ayes 32, noes 38
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.203.1) that [part 3 of schedule 2](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6111_first-reps%2F0002;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6111_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#06c0bf62a9b749438782b0b635fbf6c5) stand as printed. This means that that part will remain as it is. The vote was put after South Australian Senator [Tim Storer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/tim_storer) moved that it should be opposed. ### What is Part 3 of Schedule 2? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd115): > *Part 3 of Schedule 2 amends the Rates Act to subsequently repeal the tables containing the new tax rates that apply under the PITP [Personal Income Tax Plan], as they are superseded by further changes. The personal income tax rate and threshold tables that apply in 2018–19, 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22 would be repealed from 1 July 2024 and the income tax rate and threshold tables that apply in 2022–23 and 2023–24 are repealed from 1 July 2026.* > > *Despite the repeal of the tables, item 25 states that the rates and thresholds in the repealed tables continue to apply to the relevant income years.* — 2018-06-20, Senate: affirmative, ayes 38, noes 32
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-20.207.3) to pass the bill in the Senate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to [read the bill for a third time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(legislature)). ### What happens now? Since some amendments were added to the bill in the Senate, the bill will now return to the House of Representatives, where our MPs will decide on [whether they agree with the changes](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2018-06-21/4). If they do, then the bill will become law. If they don't, it will return to the Senate where our senators will decide on whether to insist on the amendments (which means the bill fails) or not (which means the bill will become law). ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd115): > *The Government announced its Personal Income Tax Plan (PITP) in the 2018–19 Budget. The PITP reduces personal income taxes over the next seven years through a combination of changes to tax offsets for low and middle income earners and changes in income tax thresholds. The changes will be implemented over three steps, commencing in 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2024–25. The 2018–19 changes are targeted at low and medium income earners, with the changes in 2022–23 and 2024–25 applying to individuals on higher taxable incomes.* > > *The Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 (the Bill) seeks to implement all components of the PITP. The PITP will be implemented in three steps, commencing in the 2018–19, 2022–23 and 2024–25 income years.* > > * *Step one in 2018–19; introduces the new Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LAMITO) – a non-refundable tax offset of up to $530 per annum for individuals earning up to $125,333:* > >> * *the LAMITO will only apply in the 2018–19, 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22 income years* >> >> * *from 2022–23 subsequent changes t — 2018-06-20, Senate: affirmative, ayes 38, noes 32
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of Senate Message - Put the question — 2018-06-21, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 73, noes 64
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of Senate Message - Speed things along — 2018-06-21, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 74, noes 64
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-06-21.3.2) to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to 'put the question' and so stop discussing the matter. — 2018-06-21, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 75, noes 64
- The majority agreed with a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-06-21.3.2) to disagree with the [Senate amendments](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6111). While being considered in the Senate, our senators had made a number of amendments to the text of the bill. Now the House of Representatives needs to decide whether they agree that the amendments should be made or not. If they had voted to agree with the amendments, then the bill could have become law. However, since they've disagreed, the Senate will now need to decide whether they will insist on the amendments or not. ### What is this bill about? The [bill was introduced to](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6111): * *introduce a low and middle income tax offset to reduce the tax payable by low and middle income earners that are Australian residents in the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years;* * *merge the low and middle income offset and the current low income tax offset into a new low income tax offset from the 2022-23 financial year; and* * *progressively increase the income tax rate thresholds in the 2018-19, 2022-23 and 2024-25 financial years.* — 2018-06-21, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 76, noes 64
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of Senate Message - Put the motion — 2018-06-21, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 76, noes 64
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2018-06-21.3.2) "that the [reasons](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-06-21.16.1) be adopted." The reasons voted on in this division were the reasons why they disagreed with the Senate's amendments to the bill. In other words, the House was rejecting the Senate's amendments for the reasons set out below. ### What were the reasons? > *Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate* > *Senate Amendments (1, 2 and 3)* > *The amendments proposed by the Senate remove step three of the Personal Income Tax Plan. Step three of the Personal Income Tax Plan simplifies and flattens the tax system by abolishing the 37 per cent tax bracket entirely, reducing the number of tax brackets from five to four.* > *The Plan is a package that gives certainty to Australian families that they will keep more of what they earn in the future. It comprises three steps.* > *Step 1, prioritises low and middle income earners by providing tax relief of up to $530 to help with cost of living pressures.* > *Step 2, protects what Australians earn from bracket creep, ensuring that a pay rise, extra overtime or working more hours do not get eaten up by higher tax rates.* > *Step 3, by simplifying and flattening the tax system, ensures that, by 2024-25, some 94 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate no higher than 32.5 per cent based on projections.* > *High income earners will continue to pay their fair share with the tax system remaining progressive under the Personal Income Tax Plan. For example, a person on $200,000 would pay around 13 times more tax than a person on $41,000.* > *In 2015-16, the top 20 per cent of taxpayers paid around 61 per cent of all personal income tax. Under the Personal Income Tax Plan, this cohort is projected to continue to contribute a broadly similar share in 2024-25.* > *In 2015-16 those on the top tax bracket paid 3 — 2018-06-21, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 76, noes 64
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Put the question — 2018-06-21, Senate: affirmative, ayes 39, noes 33
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Don't insist on amendments — 2018-06-21, Senate: affirmative, ayes 39, noes 33
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-21.31.1): > *That [the resolution](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2018-06-21/6) be reported.* The resolution in this case was that the committee does not insist on the Senate amendments that the House of Representatives disagreed with. Note that a bill must be agreed to by both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to become a law. In this case, the Senate had voted for a number of amendments that the House of Representatives didn't agree with. If the Senate had insisted on their amendments, the bill would have failed. — 2018-06-21, Senate: affirmative, ayes 39, noes 33
- Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 - Adoption of Report - Don't insist on amendments — 2018-06-21, Senate: affirmative, ayes 39, noes 33
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act