John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I did not intend to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006, but I feel compelled to answer a number of allegations raised by the ALP in relation to two matters. The first matter was the question of bribes and the second was the unfortunate attack on the Australian Taxation Office. I remind the Senate and particularly the ALP that the Westpoint problems were far wider than what the spokesman pointed out tonight. They were far wider than just mis-selling to self-managed funds. I remind the Senate that these schemes were very complex and were perpetrated to avoid the oversight of the main regulator—the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, generally referred to as ASIC.

What I found appalling and unfortunate was the attack on the ATO. As we all know, the ATO does not publicise its audit routines in respect of individual taxpayers, particularly in circumstances where they have complied with the law and are certainly not before a court. The ALP does not understand the oversighting by the Australian Taxation Office in relation to over 300,000 small superannuation funds. The tax office does not have a consumer protection role as ASIC does. That is not in its charter and it is not in the law in relation to these small funds. The responsibility of the Taxation Office, I remind the Senate, is to ensure that these small superannuation funds of less than five members comply with the law. It is not to exercise a consumer protection role. That is the responsibility of ASIC.

The other matter that I wish to remind the Senate of is the ALP amendment in relation to the allegation of bribes. What the opposition does not understand, I think, is that bribes are not and never have been tax deductible. I repeat that for Senator Sherry’s benefit: they are not deductible as such and they never have been. The matter is not as simple as the opposition tries to portray it in this debate. I think it is important to raise these matters. We have circumstances where the facilitation payments are not separated on the invoice. I would be very surprised if any such exporter actually itemised on the invoice or document for overseas sale a facilitation payment charge. So, where those facilitation payments are not separated on the invoice but are included, for example, in the price per tonne of the wheat, I would suggest that, in the absence of correspondence and other documentary evidence, it will be very difficult to prove a component is what I might call a facilitation payment, particularly where the price is agreed to by both the buyer and the seller.