Compare how Eric Abetz and David Feeney voted on stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation
Eric Abetz
Former Liberal Party Senator for Tasmania February 1994 – May 2022
David Feeney
Former Australian Labor Party Representative for Batman September 2013 – February 2018
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 Eric Abetz or David Feeney could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Eric Abetz and David Feeney 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 | Eric Abetz | David Feeney | 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 |
absent | - | 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 Eric Abetz or David Feeney 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 "-".