|
representatives vote 2010-11-22#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:19:15
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that the bill be now read a second time''.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
)This division took place in response to Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sophie_Mirabella&mpc=Indi&house=representatives Sophie Mirabella]'s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.77.1 motion], which was:''That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House:''''(1) reaffirms its commitment to providing continued high levels of support for Australian businesses that invest in research and development (R&D) activities;''''(2) notes that this bill weakens the current system, and recognises that the bill has significant limitations in relation to the following:''''(a) the proposed start date of 1 July 2010;''''(b) the establishment of a ‘dominant purpose’ test;''''(c) the application of feedstock provisions to a wide range of activities and results;''''(d) the reduction of support for R&D in the building industry;''''(e) the disqualification of many small and medium-sized businesses from support because of new rules in respect of their ownership structures and turnover;''''(f) the requirement for costs to be documented and attributed to ‘core’ and ‘supporting’ activities;''''(g) the new provisions relating to third-party investors in firms’ R&D; and''''(h) the proposed application of new rules relating to the disposal of R&D results to actions taken prior to the commencement of this legislation; and''''(3) urges the Government to release full modelling demonstrating the impact of its proposed changes, and reconsider its approach in order to ensure that encouragement of business R&D activity is not substantially reduced.”''One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
)''Background to the bill''The bill was introduced to establish the framework for a new research and development (R&D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incentive tax incentive] in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1997'' and to repeal the provisions of the existing incentive currently contained in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1936''.(Learn more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165 bills digest]. For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354 here].)References- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1) that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was _that the bill be now read a second time_.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). )
- This division took place in response to Liberal MP [Sophie Mirabella](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sophie_Mirabella&mpc=Indi&house=representatives)'s [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.77.1), which was:
- _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House:_
- _(1) reaffirms its commitment to providing continued high levels of support for Australian businesses that invest in research and development (R&D) activities;_
- _(2) notes that this bill weakens the current system, and recognises that the bill has significant limitations in relation to the following:_
- _(a) the proposed start date of 1 July 2010;_
- _(b) the establishment of a ‘dominant purpose’ test;_
- _(c) the application of feedstock provisions to a wide range of activities and results;_
- _(d) the reduction of support for R&D in the building industry;_
- _(e) the disqualification of many small and medium-sized businesses from support because of new rules in respect of their ownership structures and turnover;_
- _(f) the requirement for costs to be documented and attributed to ‘core’ and ‘supporting’ activities;_
- _(g) the new provisions relating to third-party investors in firms’ R&D; and_
- _(h) the proposed application of new rules relating to the disposal of R&D results to actions taken prior to the commencement of this legislation; and_
- _(3) urges the Government to release full modelling demonstrating the impact of its proposed changes, and reconsider its approach in order to ensure that encouragement of business R&D activity is not substantially reduced.”_
- One member, Nationals MP [Tony Crook](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives), rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [FAQ Section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree). )
- _Background to the bill_
- The bill was introduced to establish the framework for a new research and development (R&D) [tax incentive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incentive) in the _Income Tax Assessment Act 1997_ and to repeal the provisions of the existing incentive currently contained in the _Income Tax Assessment Act 1936_.(Learn more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165). For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354).)
- References
|
|
representatives vote 2010-11-22#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:19
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that the bill be now read a second time''.[1]- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that the bill be now read a second time''.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
)
- This division took place in response to Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sophie_Mirabella&mpc=Indi&house=representatives Sophie Mirabella]'s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.77.1 motion], which was:
- ''That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House:''
- ''(1) reaffirms its commitment to providing continued high levels of support for Australian businesses that invest in research and development (R&D) activities;''
- ''(2) notes that this bill weakens the current system, and recognises that the bill has significant limitations in relation to the following:''
- ''(a) the proposed start date of 1 July 2010;''
- ''(b) the establishment of a ‘dominant purpose’ test;''
- ''(c) the application of feedstock provisions to a wide range of activities and results;''
- ''(d) the reduction of support for R&D in the building industry;''
- ''(e) the disqualification of many small and medium-sized businesses from support because of new rules in respect of their ownership structures and turnover;''
- ''(f) the requirement for costs to be documented and attributed to ‘core’ and ‘supporting’ activities;''
- ''(g) the new provisions relating to third-party investors in firms’ R&D; and''
- ''(h) the proposed application of new rules relating to the disposal of R&D results to actions taken prior to the commencement of this legislation; and''
- ''(3) urges the Government to release full modelling demonstrating the impact of its proposed changes, and reconsider its approach in order to ensure that encouragement of business R&D activity is not substantially reduced.”''
One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.[2]- One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.(Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
)
- ''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to establish the framework for a new research and development (R&D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incentive tax incentive] in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1997'' and to repeal the provisions of the existing incentive currently contained in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1936''.[3]- The bill was introduced to establish the framework for a new research and development (R&D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incentive tax incentive] in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1997'' and to repeal the provisions of the existing incentive currently contained in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1936''.(Learn more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165 bills digest]. For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354 here].)
- References
* [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].* [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].* [3] Learn more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165 bills digest]. For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354 here].
|
|
representatives vote 2010-11-22#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-05-05 13:00:27
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that the bill be now read a second time''.- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that the bill be now read a second time''.[1]
- This division took place in response to Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sophie_Mirabella&mpc=Indi&house=representatives Sophie Mirabella]'s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.77.1 motion], which was:
- ''That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House:''
- ''(1) reaffirms its commitment to providing continued high levels of support for Australian businesses that invest in research and development (R&D) activities;''
- ''(2) notes that this bill weakens the current system, and recognises that the bill has significant limitations in relation to the following:''
- ''(a) the proposed start date of 1 July 2010;''
- ''(b) the establishment of a ‘dominant purpose’ test;''
- ''(c) the application of feedstock provisions to a wide range of activities and results;''
- ''(d) the reduction of support for R&D in the building industry;''
- ''(e) the disqualification of many small and medium-sized businesses from support because of new rules in respect of their ownership structures and turnover;''
- ''(f) the requirement for costs to be documented and attributed to ‘core’ and ‘supporting’ activities;''
- ''(g) the new provisions relating to third-party investors in firms’ R&D; and''
- ''(h) the proposed application of new rules relating to the disposal of R&D results to actions taken prior to the commencement of this legislation; and''
- ''(3) urges the Government to release full modelling demonstrating the impact of its proposed changes, and reconsider its approach in order to ensure that encouragement of business R&D activity is not substantially reduced.”''
- One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to establish the framework for a new research and development (R&D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incentive tax incentive] in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1997'' and to repeal the provisions of the existing incentive currently contained in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1936''.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
- * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
- * [3] Learn more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165 bills digest]. For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354 here].
|
|
representatives vote 2010-11-22#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-05-05 13:00:10
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that bill be now read a second time''.- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that the bill be now read a second time''.
- This division took place in response to Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sophie_Mirabella&mpc=Indi&house=representatives Sophie Mirabella]'s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.77.1 motion], which was:
- ''That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House:''
- ''(1) reaffirms its commitment to providing continued high levels of support for Australian businesses that invest in research and development (R&D) activities;''
- ''(2) notes that this bill weakens the current system, and recognises that the bill has significant limitations in relation to the following:''
- ''(a) the proposed start date of 1 July 2010;''
- ''(b) the establishment of a ‘dominant purpose’ test;''
- ''(c) the application of feedstock provisions to a wide range of activities and results;''
- ''(d) the reduction of support for R&D in the building industry;''
- ''(e) the disqualification of many small and medium-sized businesses from support because of new rules in respect of their ownership structures and turnover;''
- ''(f) the requirement for costs to be documented and attributed to ‘core’ and ‘supporting’ activities;''
- ''(g) the new provisions relating to third-party investors in firms’ R&D; and''
- ''(h) the proposed application of new rules relating to the disposal of R&D results to actions taken prior to the commencement of this legislation; and''
- ''(3) urges the Government to release full modelling demonstrating the impact of its proposed changes, and reconsider its approach in order to ensure that encouragement of business R&D activity is not substantially reduced.”''
- One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to establish the framework for a new research and development (R&D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incentive tax incentive] in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1997'' and to repeal the provisions of the existing incentive currently contained in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1936''.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
- * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
* [3] Learn more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165 bills digest]. For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354 here].- * [3] Learn more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165 bills digest]. For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354 here].
|
|
representatives vote 2010-11-22#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-05-05 12:59:52
|
Title
Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010; Income Tax Rates Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010 — Second Reading- Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010 - Second Reading - Reconsider approach taken by bill
Description
<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Ms Mirabella</b>’s amendment) stand part of the question.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.129.1 motion] that the original motion remain unchanged. The original motion was ''that bill be now read a second time''.
- This division took place in response to Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sophie_Mirabella&mpc=Indi&house=representatives Sophie Mirabella]'s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2010-11-22.77.1 motion], which was:
- ''That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House:''
- ''(1) reaffirms its commitment to providing continued high levels of support for Australian businesses that invest in research and development (R&D) activities;''
- ''(2) notes that this bill weakens the current system, and recognises that the bill has significant limitations in relation to the following:''
- ''(a) the proposed start date of 1 July 2010;''
- ''(b) the establishment of a ‘dominant purpose’ test;''
- ''(c) the application of feedstock provisions to a wide range of activities and results;''
- ''(d) the reduction of support for R&D in the building industry;''
- ''(e) the disqualification of many small and medium-sized businesses from support because of new rules in respect of their ownership structures and turnover;''
- ''(f) the requirement for costs to be documented and attributed to ‘core’ and ‘supporting’ activities;''
- ''(g) the new provisions relating to third-party investors in firms’ R&D; and''
- ''(h) the proposed application of new rules relating to the disposal of R&D results to actions taken prior to the commencement of this legislation; and''
- ''(3) urges the Government to release full modelling demonstrating the impact of its proposed changes, and reconsider its approach in order to ensure that encouragement of business R&D activity is not substantially reduced.”''
- One member, Nationals MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Crook&mpc=O%26%2339%3BConnor&house=representatives Tony Crook], rebelled and crossed the floor to vote 'aye' with the Government.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to establish the framework for a new research and development (R&D) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incentive tax incentive] in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1997'' and to repeal the provisions of the existing incentive currently contained in the ''Income Tax Assessment Act 1936''.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
- * [2] Read more about what it means to cross the floor in our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree FAQ Section].
- * [3] Learn more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0910/10bd165 bills digest]. For more, including its explanatory memorandum, see [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4354 here].
|