Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That business intervening before notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024:

(1) on Tuesday, 13 February when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is called on following the matter of public importance, a cognate debate taking place with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, and continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm;

(2) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bills being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until:

(a) no further Members rise to speak; or

(b) 10 pm;

at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 14 February at 9 am;

(3) on Wednesday 14 February when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is called on following the matter of public importance, a cognate debate taking place with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, and continuing without interruption until no further Members rise to speak, or the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm;

(4) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bills being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until no further Members rise to speak, at which point debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 15 February at 9 am;

(5) on Thursday, 15 February, when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 is called on:

(a) questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill;

(b) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with the bill being taken as a whole;

(c) at no later than 1 pm on Thursday, 15 February, any remaining questions required to conclude consideration in detail being put with no further debate; and

(d) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill;

(6) following the conclusion of proceedings on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 being immediately called on, and any questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill being put without amendment or debate; and

(7) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

I understand there are going to be other speakers, so, in terms of the times that I offer as to how late this will go tomorrow night, some of that depends on how long we spend debating the procedure. I'll try to be brief, but I'll leave it to others to make their own call. The intention here is that, because there have been such strong views around the parliament on the government's tax plan, we want everyone who is on the list to be able to speak and we don't want people to have their speaking time cut short. As you'd be aware, last week we did one late night. We did a late night last night. Tonight we'd similarly go till 10 o'clock. Tomorrow night, on the current length of the speaking list, we'd go through till 8.30 pm, but there would be capacity for it to go later either if people add to the speaking list or if the House is disrupted in other ways. Then we would deal with consideration in detail on the Thursday morning. We'd start on Thursday morning with a division if required, although I don't see any indication that there's going to be a division on the bill—although possibly there might be one on the second reading amendment or something like that.

The argument will be made, I'm sure—by a different person, but I suspect it's a similar script—that somehow this involves a gag and guillotine of debate. If I can explain: for the Morrison government tax cuts the second reading debate ended up being closed with the motion that the question be put after one hour and 45 minutes of debate. Already we have had 10 hours, with 47 speakers after introduction. I expect there'll be another five or six hours of debate today, another four hours tomorrow morning and then however late it goes tomorrow to make sure every member gets to speak. That's somewhat different to one hour and 45 minutes, and whoever is about to stand up and say that this is an outrageous motion will I suspect be one of the people who voted in favour of the question being put after one hour and 45 minutes. I know I shouldn't pre-empt. Maybe I'll get a declaration of admiration! Let's just see how we go.

The consideration in detail on the tax cuts for the Morrison government went for an hour and a half. But don't think that was an hour and a half of debate: 28 minutes of that time was taken up with divisions, shutting people down and preventing people from speaking. Based on the speaking list that's currently in front of us, in terms of comparison with previous tax bills, debate time should go for 12 times longer than what happened with the Morrison government, and in terms of consideration in detail, more than double the time of the Morrison government's tax legislation without people spending half an hour in divisions.

That's what this resolution would do. I'll commend it to the House. It means everyone gets to speak. It's a significant difference to previous terms as to how we've debated tax legislation. And we will now cue to either logic or outrage—I'll leave it to you.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We weren't going to say anything. We were just going to let this go through, and we're still going to do that. But, given that the minister was there trying to apologise for the fact that he's gagging and trying to use other examples, I thought, 'Well, I'd better get up and just have a little bit of fun.' With all that effort he went to, to make out that he wasn't gagging when that's what he's done, it probably needed to be pointed out. We're not going to oppose this. But given that the minister spent so long trying to apologise, in a fairly funny way, for what he was doing and wouldn't just face up and just say, 'Well, this is what we're doing,' I just thought I'd get up and make the point that sometimes it's better to just be straight, Minister!

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there are no further speakers, I am putting the question that the motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

An honourable member interjecting—

I love a bit of universal love in the House!