Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Before I move amendment (3), which concerns better targeting tax transparency, I think we need to be very clear about some of the information and some of the reasons why some senators in the chamber may not support this Greens amendment. In our speeches on the second reading we have already gone through the fact that when this legislation came previously the speaking list collapsed for various reasons, it did not go to a division, we did not have adequate debate, and a number of stakeholders were quite disappointed.

We are glad that tonight we have had a chance to debate the issues around this, not just because we missed out before, but, because we had new information that came to light. That information was basically that we had been 'astroturfed' by a front organisation that appeared during the committee process, and senators themselves have admitted it had an impact on their decision when we voted on the last piece of legislation.

As Heath Aston described in an article recently, astroturfing in American politics is:

… the use of artificial grassroots to create an impression of widespread support for a particular political agenda.

Astroturfing can take many shapes but at its most basic the process enables already powerful interests to 'counter-mobilise against regulation' …

As one example. We think we have seen a very clear example of that. Here is an opportunity for senators to take some new information into account in relation to how they vote on these laws tonight.

These laws are different because they relate to a $100 million threshold for businesses and for individuals. Once again, the principle is very simple. It is that same as we discussed earlier in relation to the legislation around a $1 billion limit. It is all about transparency and it is about disclosure.

Senator Xenophon has been very open about his concerns. He has spoken to a couple of businesses that are concerned about their competitive position. They compete against Coles and Woolworths, the duopoly. There is no doubt that Senator Xenophon has done an enormous amount of work trying to help small and bigger businesses, but I would not say that $100 million is a small business—in fact it is an enormous business. I understand also that Senator Muir has spoken to some car component manufacturing companies that have lobbied him about not wanting to see these disclosure laws, because of competitive pressures. Let me say that for $38 a competitor can go to ASIC and get the same information. So, in the competitive dynamic world that we all know these businesses compete in, the information is available anyway. All this does is make it compulsory to put that information up on a register, so if someone wants to find your data and your information they can get it by applying to ASIC.

The argument is that, somehow, a couple of special interests, and I am guessing that it is only a few, could railroad this amendment tonight on the back of some legislation that is significantly in the public interest. Whether we are dealing with a front group that is astroturfing on behalf of some wealthy individuals, or whether it is a couple of businesses with genuine concerns around their competitive positions, we as senators need to weigh up their special interests against the public interest. This is that public interest measure, and the coalition—whether it is the Tax Justice Network or the other groups that have brought this to our attention—is very broad. I do not think that there is a single Australian out there, apart from the ones who are worth more than $100 million, who would oppose this legislation tonight if you actually put it to them in a sensible and balanced manner.

Senator Canavan interjecting—

Maybe some Tories would possibly, Senator Canavan, even if they were aspiring to be worth $100 million. Perhaps you are right. I forgot about the aspirationally wealthy in this country. The idea is that most of them would probably be good, honest, hardworking people, even if they are wealthy, and should not have an issue with having their tax disclosure in the public realm. I would ask senators to consider this. Senator Xenophon, I ask you to consider your position. This is a matter of significant public interest, and I do not think that we should let this legislation go down tonight because of the interests of a couple of corporations, no matter how well meaning. This is an opportunity for us to continue strengthening laws around disclosure and around potential tax minimisation and tax avoidance, and I urge the Senate to support the Greens amendment tonight.

I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7787:

(3) Page 17 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5—Repeal of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Act 2015

Part 1—Repeal of Act

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Act 2015

1 The whole of the Act

  Repeal the Act.

Part 2—Application

2 Application

(1) This item applies if the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Act 2015 receives the Royal Assent before this Schedule commences.

(2) Despite section 7 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 as in force immediately before that Royal Assent continues to apply, by force of this item, as if the amendments made by the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Act 2015 had never been made.