Division
Christine Milne I move: _At the end of the motion, add:_ _but the Senate calls on the government to:_ _(a) extend the provisions of the levy beyond the 2016-17 financial year, making the levy permanent; and_ _(b) guarantee that no tax cuts will be made, or promised, for the top income tax bracket, prior to the 2016 election._ In other words, no tax cut, or promise of one, is permitted before the 2016 election. That would test the mettle of this. If you are serious about a permanent change for those who earn more than $180,000, you would have no concerns at all about supporting this amendment. I call on both the government and the Labor Party to support this amendment. We are not going to let the government off the hook with their temporary levy. We are not going to stand by and watch what is going to happen-that is, everybody else suffers while the rich get ready to organise themselves to not pay it, to minimise their income, and get ready for the tax cut in 2016. At a recent Senate hearing Senator Cormann said: _We are very conscious of the fact that high-income earners already do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to contributing to Commonwealth revenue. But in the context of this budget we decided and judged that it was necessary to ask everyone across the community to make a contribution, including asking high-income earners to make an additional effort on top of the significant effort that they are already making._ But the Grattan Institute made it clear that 'it does not share the pain very effectively as it will only have a short-term impact on high-income earners; and, by contrast, the spending cuts will have a disproportionately large effect on lower income earners and they are permanent'. And Saul Eslake made the point that 'it will encourage at least some higher income households to take more active steps to engage in tax minimisation or avoidance activities, including by making greater use of the myriad provisions in the income tax system which off
Senate, 2014-06-16. negative: ayes 11, noes 58.
Question
Christine Milne I move: _At the end of the motion, add:_ _but the Senate calls on the government to:_ _(a) extend the provisions of the levy beyond the 2016-17 financial year, making the levy permanent; and_ _(b) guarantee that no tax cuts will be made, or promised, for the top income tax bracket, prior to the 2016 election._ In other words, no tax cut, or promise of one, is permitted before the 2016 election. That would test the mettle of this. If you are serious about a permanent change for those who earn more than $180,000, you would have no concerns at all about supporting this amendment. I call on both the government and the Labor Party to support this amendment. We are not going to let the government off the hook with their temporary levy. We are not going to stand by and watch what is going to happen-that is, everybody else suffers while the rich get ready to organise themselves to not pay it, to minimise their income, and get ready for the tax cut in 2016. At a recent Senate hearing Senator Cormann said: _We are very conscious of the fact that high-income earners already do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to contributing to Commonwealth revenue. But in the context of this budget we decided and judged that it was necessary to ask everyone across the community to make a contribution, including asking high-income earners to make an additional effort on top of the significant effort that they are already making._ But the Grattan Institute made it clear that 'it does not share the pain very effectively as it will only have a short-term impact on high-income earners; and, by contrast, the spending cuts will have a disproportionately large effect on lower income earners and they are permanent'. And Saul Eslake made the point that 'it will encourage at least some higher income households to take more active steps to engage in tax minimisation or avoidance activities, including by making greater use of the myriad provisions in the income tax system which off
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.