How Claire Moore voted compared to someone who believes that the federal govenment should increase transparency in big business (that is, companies with an income equal or more than $100 million/year or, alternatively, $200 million/year) by making certain information public, including their total income and how much tax they paid

Division Claire Moore Supporters vote Division outcome

26th Nov 2018 – Senate Motions - Order for the Production of Documents

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by a Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick (SA), which means it succeeded.

Motion text

(1) That the Senate notes that—

(a) on 16 October 2018, the Senate ordered the Commissioner of Taxation to provide information (company names to the Economics Legislation Committee related to designated financial entities that have lodged late, or not yet lodged, a corporate income tax return;

(b) on 5 November 2018, the Minister for Finance and the Public Service advanced a public interest immunity claim on the grounds that the disclosure of individual taxpayer information to the committee will harm the public interest by undermining public confidence in taxation laws and taxation administration;

(c) the Minister for Finance and the Public Service also claimed that the disclosure of this information will have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient operations of the Australian Taxation Office;

(d) except in circumstances where the Parliament has explicitly carved out the ability for a House of Parliament to make inquiries, the secrecy provisions of legislation are subservient to the Constitution-derived inquiry powers of Senate;

(e) disclosing the names of financial entities that have not complied with tax laws does not undermine taxation laws and taxation administration, but rather may serve to encourage compliance with taxation laws; and

(f) Australia's tax transparency laws oblige the Commissioner of Taxation to annually publish selected income tax information, including the company name, for certain taxpayers and this has not resulted in the purported harm.

(2) That the Senate affirms that:

(a) there are few circumstances in which a corporation can be of the view they are entitled to anonymity;

(b) the public interest balance lies in favour of the disclosure of companies in breach of taxation law; and

(c) the Senate does not accept the public interest immunity claim advanced by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service.

(3) That the Senate orders the Commissioner of Taxation to comply with the balance of the order agreed to by the Senate on 16 October 2018.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

25th Jun 2018, 12:19 PM – Senate Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to pass the bill in the Senate, which means the bill will now go to the House of Representatives for their consideration. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time.

What does the bill do?

NSW Senator Doug Cameron (Labor) explained that:

This bill implements a very specific tax transparency measure. The Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017 amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to require the Commissioner of Taxation to publicly release tax data for large private firms with turnover of $100 million or over. This is as Labor originally legislated in 2013 in the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. Section 3C of the act details the type of income and tax information the Commissioner of Taxation is required to make publicly available annually for corporate entities. The bill addresses a prominent deficiency in the tax transparency regime that arose after amendments were made in 2015 and it brings approximately 600 large companies into the tax transparency regime.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

3rd Dec 2015, 8:01 PM – Senate Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Remove 'grandfathering' provisions

Show detail

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.

Yes Yes Not passed by a small majority

3rd Dec 2015, 7:25 PM – Senate Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Tax information of companies earning over $200m

Show detail

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.

No Yes Passed by a small majority

3rd Dec 2015, 7:15 PM – Senate Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Tax information of some companies earning over $200m

Show detail

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.

No Yes Not passed by a large majority

3rd Dec 2015, 7:07 PM – Senate Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Tax information of companies earning over $100m

Show detail

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.

Yes Yes Not passed by a small majority

10th Nov 2015, 6:51 PM – Senate Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 - in Committee - General purpose financial report

Show detail

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.

Yes Yes Passed by a small majority

How "voted moderately for" is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes Points Out of
Most important votes (50 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 5 50 50
MP voted against policy 2 0 20
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 50 70

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 50 / 70 = 71%.

And then