Compare how Peter Dutton and Deborah O'Neill voted on stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation
Peter Dutton
Liberal Party Representative for Dickson since November 2001
Deborah O'Neill
Australian Labor Party Senator for NSW since November 2013
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the federal government should make it harder for individuals and corporations to avoid or aggressively minimise their Australian tax obligations and take part in international efforts to keep track of these individuals and corporations by sharing income and asset information
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation” which either Peter Dutton or Deborah O'Neill could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peter Dutton and Deborah O'Neill on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
| Division | Peter Dutton | Deborah O'Neill | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
9th Aug 2021, 8:45 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Get rid of exemption to scrutiny |
- | Yes | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation” which either Peter Dutton or Deborah O'Neill could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".