- The government’s tax cuts will pass parliament with the support of the Coalition
- The federal opposition will attempt to amend the bill but will not stand in the way if that fails
- The prime minister dared the Coalition to oppose the bill ahead of its introduction
I hate to say this, but I’ll give Dutton credit for agreeing to this. I mean, it was ABSOLUTELY the right call, and denying it would be the political equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot, but its never stopped them from trying in the past.
Did he really have a choice though?
Labor played smart politics with this and forced Dutton and the conservatives into a corner where they’d have to justify not giving tax cuts to the vast majority of people while giving thousands to the wealthy. It was always going to be political suicide to fight this. The outcome of them backflipping and supporting this was inevitable.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Coalition has agreed at a partyroom meeting to wave through the federal government’s changes to the stage 3 tax cuts.
The decision means the government will not have to negotiate with the Greens or crossbench to pass the tax cut change through the Senate.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said the government had betrayed the public’s trust and labelled the changes “bad policy”, but the Coalition would support them anyway.
Speaking ahead of the first sitting day of parliament, Mr Albanese dared the Liberal Party to oppose the changes if its outrage was genuine.
“If they are fair dinkum, then their response must be to not only oppose what we are putting forward with our legislation we’ll introduce today, but to promise to roll it back,” Mr Albanese said.
Independent MP Allegra Spender also announced her decision to back the government’s proposed tax cuts, in a sign of how the planned changes had been received in some of Australia’s wealthier electorates.
The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“We are supporting this change not to support the prime minister’s lie but to support families who need help now.”
Translation: we don’t want to but it’s the right thing to do.
Good on them for actually doing something right even if it’s in their crooked underhanded way. It’s kind of like finding out The Joker has decided to fund orphanages around Gotham, like yeah I guess that’s nice but he was hitting them with laughing gas not long ago.
Translation: We will lose billions of dollars per year, and therefore have less money on public services.
A tax cut is a service cut
Absolutely! Unfortunately, not something the small government voters understand (from my experiences living in a conservative area). Simultaneously sabotaging funding for public services through tax cuts while also criticising the lack of service from the same sectors. E.g. Hospital staff funding cuts leading to ramping. Guess which one they care about; the cause or the result.
But given the option between giving tax breaks to the upper echelons or the masses I’m choosing the many over the few.
