Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I have a range of serious questions to direct towards the minister, who I note has just entered the chamber. This is, of course, the minister who very kindly voted for my second reading amendment last week, calling upon the government to explain why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia. Given that the government is yet to honour its votes by actually explaining to the House why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia, I hope the minister will use this opportunity to do so.

Minister, I first draw your attention to the announcement from the Australian Bureau of Statistics of cuts to critical Australian Bureau of Statistics collections, among these statistics on housing finance, retail sales, early childhood, foreign ownership and crime victimisation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics head, David Kalisch, has said:

The ABS does not have the resources to undertake all the activities that fall within our legislative mandate that our users would like.

He specifically named statistics on housing affordability and retail sales as being in the firing line. Minister, is it the case that the government deliberately does not want statistics on housing affordability to be in the public domain given that the government has no plan for housing affordability? It has a scare campaign against Labor's carefully calibrated and grandfathered changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount but no plan of its own to address housing affordability.

Is it the case that the government intends to cut the patient experience survey because its war on Medicare has left the experience of many Australian patients much worse than it was in past years? Is it the case that the government intends to cut the internet activity survey because its second-rate, copper national broadband network is unable to cope with the demands of a 21st-century economy?

Minister, I draw your attention in particular to issues around multinational taxation. We know that, prior to the budget, The Australian reported that the government was going to act on thin capitalisation. Then, after the budget, on 5 May, The Australian reported that the government had failed to act on thin capitalisation but had come close. How do they know this? The journalist pointed out that there was an orphan definition in the budget—a definition of a term which appeared nowhere in the budget. 'Thin capitalisation' was defined, but nothing was done with that definition. Minister, is it the case that the government was willing to act on thin capitalisation until pressured by special interest groups? Is it the case that the government had gone down the path of wanting to do the right thing on thin capitalisation but finally pulled back from following Labor into good tax reform on closing debt deduction loopholes under pressure from special interests?

Minister, has Treasury modelled the impact of a reduction in the safe-harbour threshold in this term of government or in the previous term of government? What would be the revenue implications of a reduction in the safe-harbour threshold from 60 per cent to 50 per cent as was being mooted prior to the last budget? Minister, setting aside the extra staff of the ATO to enforce existing multinational tax avoidance measures, would a reduction in the safe-harbour threshold from 60 per cent to 50 per cent result in more revenue than the forecast revenue of the diverted profits tax?

Minister, why was 'thin capitalisation' defined in the budget glossary but not mentioned anywhere else in the budget?

Has the government got a practice of defining terms that it thinks it might use in the budget but ultimately decides not to use? Minister, why was the government backgrounding journalists, prior to the budget, that it intended to act on thin capitalisation but then failed to do anything?

I ask further about revenue commitments from compliance measures. On 12 September, the Australian National Audit Office reported its findings on the effectiveness of the Australian Taxation Office in achieving revenue commitments established under specific budget-funded compliance measures. The report found that it was unclear if the ATO had achieved the revenue commitments made to government for all budget-funded compliance measures over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. I ask whether the Audit Office's concern is realised and whether the government has taken it upon itself to address that particular concern?

See this speech in context