Division
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-02-27.6.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Siewert [explained that the amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-02-27.6.1) related to the secretary's discretion. ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 37, page 10 (after line 32), after subsection 1073BA(2), insert:* > > *(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), when determining such period a person is taken to have received employment income over, the Secretary must consider the following:* > >> *(a) the nature of the person's remunerative work;* >> >> *(b) the nature of the person's employment income, including the matters in subsections 8(1A)-(1C);* >> >> *(c) any hardship which may be caused to the person by attributing employment income over such period;* >> >> *(d) whether the employment income relates to remunerative work that was undertaken at a time when the person was not receiving a social security pension or a social security benefit.* ### What does the bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd085), the bill was introduced in order to: * *change the way employment income is assessed for the purposes of the social security income test so that rather than assessing income ‘earned, derived or received’ during the assessment period, the income test will assess employment income that is paid during the assessment period and* * *allow for data collected by the Australian Tax Office, particularly employment income reported through the Single Touch Payroll (STP) system, to be shared with Services Australia for the purposes of administering social security, family assistance and student payments.*
Senate, 2020-02-27. negative: ayes 29, noes 35.
Question
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-02-27.6.1) introduced by WA Senator [Rachel Siewert](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rachel_siewert) (Greens), which means it failed. Senator Siewert [explained that the amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-02-27.6.1) related to the secretary's discretion. ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, item 37, page 10 (after line 32), after subsection 1073BA(2), insert:* > > *(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), when determining such period a person is taken to have received employment income over, the Secretary must consider the following:* > >> *(a) the nature of the person's remunerative work;* >> >> *(b) the nature of the person's employment income, including the matters in subsections 8(1A)-(1C);* >> >> *(c) any hardship which may be caused to the person by attributing employment income over such period;* >> >> *(d) whether the employment income relates to remunerative work that was undertaken at a time when the person was not receiving a social security pension or a social security benefit.* ### What does the bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd085), the bill was introduced in order to: * *change the way employment income is assessed for the purposes of the social security income test so that rather than assessing income ‘earned, derived or received’ during the assessment period, the income test will assess employment income that is paid during the assessment period and* * *allow for data collected by the Australian Tax Office, particularly employment income reported through the Single Touch Payroll (STP) system, to be shared with Services Australia for the purposes of administering social security, family assistance and student payments.*
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.