Division
Lee Rhiannon Mr Chair, I draw your attention to the Greens' second amendment on sheet 7763, on schedule 2. It is the significant amendment here, and so I suggest that it be dealt with first. I move: (2) Schedule 2, page 8 (lines 1 to 11), to be opposed. This is an issue that I did cover in the second reading debate. It addresses the issue of overseas employment. Effectively, it would remove the exemption for some, but not all, overseas employees. This is where I do request clarification from the minister, because from my reading of the bill the tax exemptions would be retained for workers in private NGOs, the Australian Federal Police and the military. While the Greens can see merit in having consistency in our tax laws, why is there this inconsistency in this piece of legislation? When you look at it it looks as though this is just one small aspect, but it appears that it could be quite significant. It certainly looks as though it is buried in there, that we have this measure that really does create a two-tier system. It penalises workers who choose to work for the government in delivering overseas development assistance. And this is my direct question that I put to the minister: is it the case that workers in private NGOs, the Australian Federal Police and the military will retain their tax exemption status? And why should not all government employees, or all employees who are working under overseas development systems, be treated in the same way? Michaelia Cash Thank you Senator Rhiannon for the question. I am instructed that in relation to your question, Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel access an income tax exemption under a different provision in the income tax law, and that provision will not be affected by this amendment. I am also advised that DFAT has recently made administrative amendments to exclude their employees from accessing an income tax exemption on income earned in delivering ODA overseas. DFAT has clarified this po
Senate, 2015-09-16. affirmative: ayes 33, noes 9.
Question
Lee Rhiannon Mr Chair, I draw your attention to the Greens' second amendment on sheet 7763, on schedule 2. It is the significant amendment here, and so I suggest that it be dealt with first. I move: (2) Schedule 2, page 8 (lines 1 to 11), to be opposed. This is an issue that I did cover in the second reading debate. It addresses the issue of overseas employment. Effectively, it would remove the exemption for some, but not all, overseas employees. This is where I do request clarification from the minister, because from my reading of the bill the tax exemptions would be retained for workers in private NGOs, the Australian Federal Police and the military. While the Greens can see merit in having consistency in our tax laws, why is there this inconsistency in this piece of legislation? When you look at it it looks as though this is just one small aspect, but it appears that it could be quite significant. It certainly looks as though it is buried in there, that we have this measure that really does create a two-tier system. It penalises workers who choose to work for the government in delivering overseas development assistance. And this is my direct question that I put to the minister: is it the case that workers in private NGOs, the Australian Federal Police and the military will retain their tax exemption status? And why should not all government employees, or all employees who are working under overseas development systems, be treated in the same way? Michaelia Cash Thank you Senator Rhiannon for the question. I am instructed that in relation to your question, Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel access an income tax exemption under a different provision in the income tax law, and that provision will not be affected by this amendment. I am also advised that DFAT has recently made administrative amendments to exclude their employees from accessing an income tax exemption on income earned in delivering ODA overseas. DFAT has clarified this po
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.