Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

First of all I'd like to clarify a couple of things that have been said in debate. It is common that tax law bills do remain in the House until we have an agreement in the Senate. We put lots of legislation through the House as quickly as we can, and then the Senate does amendments. A lot of amendments for anything that involves appropriations or revenue issues can't be done in the Senate. So it is not uncommon at all for bills of that nature to be kept in the House until we have a situation where we believe there is passage in the Senate. Then they go through here fairly quickly and go across. At the time, on the date in February—I've just asked some people about the context of that—(1) at that point we were not confident that we had support in the Senate; and (2) on that same day we were trying to get the three-day guarantee with respect to early childhood education through. The upending of the program was something that we weren't willing to do that day.

My understanding, from the speeches that have been said, is that we now have the support of the opposition for that whole bill. That was not previously the understanding of the government. There are other measures in that bill as well as the instant asset write-off. That day, as I've said, there was an issue with the upending of the program, as I've been advised; I've gone back through it. The other issues include the deductibility of interest payments for late payment and the luxury car tax adjustment, if it is as it appears from the speeches.

The capacity for amendments and disagreement between the houses is not actually with us because the Senate doesn't sit tomorrow. So I just want to be really clear. The opposition is making a decision now, in moving this, that they will support the whole bill in the Senate. Anything other than that will mean that this particular procedure will have prevented the instant asset write-off from being carried. That's what it will mean. They want to progress the government agenda. I'm happy to progress it. Up until this moment that has not been their position.

But I'm saying to the opposition now: if you're ever going to say, 'Oh, we'll just have a disagreement between the houses,' you can't do that today because we all know that these houses won't be sitting in their current form for too much longer. We all know that the Senate is not sitting on Thursday. In supporting this, we take the Opposition at their word that they are now supporting the entire bill. If that's not what happens in the Senate, we'll be in a situation where there is not an agreement between the houses and there is no way of resolving it. The action of the opposition right now is potentially the only reason we don't have a way of getting it through. So I'm going to take the opposition at their word. I'm going to take them in good faith. They have said they will support the whole bill. I'm going to presume that there will not be a backflip in the Senate. The opposition are now saying they'll support some of these measures that they have previously opposed. I'm going to welcome that. If they are consistent between 10 minutes to five in the afternoon and midnight tonight, and if they don't change their position between those hours, then we will get something through that the government has been trying to get through for months and months. I hope that is the case, and on the basis that that's the case and that we can take the opposition at their word, I'm happy to support the resolution and to see the passage of this legislation go through to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context