House debates

Thursday, 26 May 2011

Business

Rearrangement

10:34 am

Photo of Adam BandtAdam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Let me make it clear for everyone, because this does seem to be turning into another one of those Thursday morning specials, that when the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill comes before the House in substance, whether that is now or at some later stage, I and the Greens will be opposing it. We will not be opposing it on the grounds that it is a money bill or an appropriations bill; we do not agree with that argument that has been put by the government. The grounds on which it will be opposed will be fleshed out later but, in short, we believe the government has available to it a better solution for tackling this issue. We are concerned about potential tax implications and implications for the revenue in passing the bill as it is and, like the member for Lyne, we would want more discussion about what potential cost implications for employers—and that is despite being sympathetic to the underlying principle of the bill.

As far as the questions before the House today go, it is our understanding that, if there is support from the opposition for a suspension of the standing orders to allow a debate today, then that is the way we will vote as well. I notice that the bill is not listed on the Daily Program, so if it was the view of the private member proposing the bill that it was not scheduled to be voted on today then I believe, as a person who moves private member's bills, we have an interest in ensuring that the matter proceeds in an orderly fashion and that there is not the bringing on of votes in a way different from the expectations of those who brought the matter before the chamber. We will be wanting to make sure that there is proper opportunity for debate in accordance with the wishes of the mover of the bill but when it ultimately comes on we will not be supporting it—not because it is not a money bill, and we do not agree with that, but because we do not agree with the bill.

Comments

No comments