Barry O'Sullivan voted moderately against stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Victorian Senator Ricky Muir, which means it was unsuccessful.

What was the amendment?

The amendment would have removed the grandfathering provisions from the bill. These provisions mean that the old compliance system continues to apply to particular companies - in this case, some 1500 companies.

Western Australian Senator Mathias Cormann explained the reason for the grandfathering provisions:

The grandfathering of exempted proprietary companies was done to avoid disrupting businesses which would have established themselves under other business forms, if they had known that they would have had additional compliance and reporting requirements which might be subsequently introduced.

However, those who supported Senator Muir's amendments argued that the grandfathering provisions were meant to be temporary and that the time has come to remove them (read the whole debate after 7:28pm).

These grandfathering provisions are one of the most controversial aspects of the bill.

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

To learn more about the bill, see the bills digest.

The majority voted for this amendent, which was introduced by Greens Senator Richard Di Natale, which means it was successful.

What was the amendment?

The amendment introduced new provisions that mean that Australian companies with a total annual income of $200 million or more will have to report certain tax information so it becomes public. That information includes the company's ABN, its total annual income, its taxable income and its tax payable.

The Labor Party opposed this amendment and said the threshold should be $100 million.

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi rebelled against his colleagues (which is known as crossing the floor) and voted against this amendment because he believed it went against a policy his party room had previously agreed on.

What made this amendment controversial?

Even though the Greens Party earlier agreed with the Labor Party that the threshold should be $100 million, they made an agreement with the Coalition Government to support a higher $200 million threshold. They did this because they thought it was better than nothing. Read ABC News for more information.

The Labor Party were not pleased.

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

To learn more about the bill, see the bills digest.

The majority voted against Senator Ricky Muir's amendent, which related to the same provisions as the previous Labor amendment and later Greens amendment, but with some differences.

Read Senator Muir's amendment in its context (at 7:10pm) to compare it.

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

To learn more about the bill, see the bills digest.

The majority voted against a very controversial amendment introduced by NSW Labor Senator Sam Dastyari.

What was the amendment?

The amendment insisted that Australian companies with a total annual income of $100 million or more should have to report certain tax information so it becomes public. That information includes the company's ABN, its total annual income, its taxable income and its tax payable.

The Coalition Governmnet opposed this amendment and said the threshold should be $200 million.

Why was it so controversial?

Even though the Greens Party earlier agreed with the Labor Party that the threshold should be $100 million, they made an agreement to vote with the Coalition Government and reject this amendment. They did this because they thought it was better than nothing. Read ABC News for more information.

The Labor Party were not pleased.

Some choice insults from Labor to the Greens

"Sell-out rats!" said Senator Stephen Conroy.

"Sell-out Greens." agreed Senator Sue Lines.

"Spineless!" continued Senator Conroy.

"Sell-outs!" repeated Senator Lines.

"Absolute bunch of amateurs." contributed Senator Doug Cameron.

Through it all, Greens Senator Richard Di Natale kept trying to explain why the Greens were voting against the amendment (and therefore voting with the Coalition Government) - here is a taste of his explanation.

Meanwhile, the Chairman warned the angry interrupting senators that:

"I can at this point advise senators that I have cancelled my flight tonight. So I am in no hurry to finish this, but we will finish this with the Senate having some order."

Read the whole argument after 6:53 pm.

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

To learn more about the bill, see the bills digest.

The majority voted in favour of an amendment moved by Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

This amendment would require all companies (both Australian and international) with a revenue of $1 billion a year or more to give a general purpose financial report rather than a special purpose financial report, "which are scant in their detail" (see Xenophon's full explanation).

What does the bill do?

The bill strengthens the laws against tax avoidance for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.

To learn more about the bill, see the bills digest.

The majority of senators voted for Green Senator for Tasmania Christine Milne's motion to act on corporate tax evasion.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the recent release of the Who Pays for our Common Wealth? report by Tax Justice Network and United Voice, and

(ii) That the report found that of Australia's largest 200 companies, 29 per cent have an effective tax rate of 10 per cent or less, and 14 per cent have an effective tax rate of 0 per cent;

(b) recognises that instead of targeting the poor, the sick and the young with its cruel budget, the Government could raise billions in revenue if companies paid the full 30 per cent tax rate; and

(c) urges the Government:

(i) to act on corporate tax evasion in Australia immediately, rather than unnecessarily waiting for the G20 in November 2014, and

(ii) introduce legislation that requires Australian corporations to disclose all foreign subsidiaries in their financial statements.