Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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 five dollar increase is broadly in line with the increase in the consumer price index between 2012 and 2017.

This measure—combined with the other measure, regarding the departing Australia superannuation arrangements, as well as the measures that I have just referred to in the introduction of the other bill relating to the 15 per cent tax on backpackers—ensures that, of the $760 million that was set out in the budget in May of this year, some $640 million or thereabouts of that will be achieved by the combination of these measures. These are important to ensure that no further diminution of the revenue is resulting from the conclusion of this matter. It has been important to resolve this matter. We are keen to ensure that this matter is resolved this week, for the backpacker market into Australia and for the horticultural industry in particular, who have raised significant concerns about this. But, equally, the budget measures have to be addressed as well, to ensure that taxpayers are no further impacted by these arrangements. I commend this bill to the House.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate must now be adjourned. Member for Grayndler?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker—on indulgence perhaps—I note that the Treasurer has outlined the changes he seeks to make to a bill that was carried by the parliament on its last sitting day, last Thursday, and we will have a full debate about those issues when the bill is considered. But I am raising on a point of order about whether indeed it is in order for the parliament to consider legislation that seeks to bind not just this parliament but the next parliament as well with a so-called 'freeze' of five years, and indeed whether it is competent for this parliament to consider this legislation.

Governments come and go; budgets come and go each year. The suggestion that a government can be bound and that it cannot be undone by future legislation that would override this legislation seems to me to be self-evidently wrong in law. Therefore, this parliament should not debate legislation that is not in accordance with the competence of this parliament to consider it—that is, this attempt to bind future governments as per this legislation. I wonder about the status of the legal advice on this bill.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will take his seat and I will call the minister.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On similar indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I note the learned contributions from the member for Grayndler 'QC', but these matters obviously can be dealt with in debate and I look forward to that being the case.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. The debate must now be adjourned. I have sought advice from the Clerk and the Clerk has said that this can be debated during—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not adjourning the debate. I have raised a point of order and asked for a ruling, effectively, as to whether this proposed legislation is competently before the House of Representatives.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Clerk has indicated to me that the debate must be adjourned. We can seek a ruling, but we cannot give it to you right at this moment. We will adjourn the debate and your request for a ruling can be addressed.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to create an undue difficulty, but I do think that it would be appropriate that a determination of my point of order, as to whether this is legislation that is competent for the House of Representatives to debate, be dealt with before we proceed to the further debate of this legislation. On that basis, I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

But I do think it would be appropriate for there to be a ruling from the Speaker prior to the commencement of further debate on this legislation.

Question agreed to.