Division
Andrew Leigh by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 15 (cell at table item 6, column 2), omit "2019", substitute "2018". (2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 16 (lines 22 to 33), omit subitem (3), substitute: _ Statements_ (3) Despite subsection 396-105(6) in Schedule 1 to the _Taxation Administration Act 1953_, to the extent that a statement under subsection 396-105(2) in that Schedule for 2017 relates to an account that is a Lower Value Account (within the meaning of the CRS), the statement must be given to the Commissioner no later than 31 July 2019. Note: Section 388-55 in that Schedule allows the Commissioner to defer the time for giving an approved form. It is a sad day for this House when the assistant minister—who has now been in this place for nearly a decade—gets confused as to the periods in the debate when one moves a second reading amendment and when one moves a detailed amendment. As a member of nine years standing ought to know, the time for moving a detailed amendment is now, and I am now doing so. This detailed amendment—moved at the proper time, Assistant Minister—is not a controversial one. It simply suggests that Australia's timetable for implementing the Common Reporting Standard should be the same as those of the 40 countries that are moving to implement corporate reporting in 2018. That would bring corporate reporting into line with the reporting for high-income individuals. It is not a controversial amendment. It should be supported by any government worth its salt. Any government that is interested in taking multinational tax avoidance seriously ought to be willing to move on the Common Reporting Standard in line with other countries. I foreshadowed this amendment, in my second reading debate speech, earlier. It is a very straightforward amendment, one which simply changes the date in a bill. It does so to ensure that Australia is not a laggard when it comes to dealing with multinational tax avoidance. Multin
House of Representatives, 2016-02-08. negative: ayes 53, noes 86.
Question
Andrew Leigh by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Schedule 1, item 14, page 15 (cell at table item 6, column 2), omit "2019", substitute "2018". (2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 16 (lines 22 to 33), omit subitem (3), substitute: _ Statements_ (3) Despite subsection 396-105(6) in Schedule 1 to the _Taxation Administration Act 1953_, to the extent that a statement under subsection 396-105(2) in that Schedule for 2017 relates to an account that is a Lower Value Account (within the meaning of the CRS), the statement must be given to the Commissioner no later than 31 July 2019. Note: Section 388-55 in that Schedule allows the Commissioner to defer the time for giving an approved form. It is a sad day for this House when the assistant minister—who has now been in this place for nearly a decade—gets confused as to the periods in the debate when one moves a second reading amendment and when one moves a detailed amendment. As a member of nine years standing ought to know, the time for moving a detailed amendment is now, and I am now doing so. This detailed amendment—moved at the proper time, Assistant Minister—is not a controversial one. It simply suggests that Australia's timetable for implementing the Common Reporting Standard should be the same as those of the 40 countries that are moving to implement corporate reporting in 2018. That would bring corporate reporting into line with the reporting for high-income individuals. It is not a controversial amendment. It should be supported by any government worth its salt. Any government that is interested in taking multinational tax avoidance seriously ought to be willing to move on the Common Reporting Standard in line with other countries. I foreshadowed this amendment, in my second reading debate speech, earlier. It is a very straightforward amendment, one which simply changes the date in a bill. It does so to ensure that Australia is not a laggard when it comes to dealing with multinational tax avoidance. Multin
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.