Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, they vote together now, the Greens and the Nationals.

What is so amazing is that we are dealing with amendments now that, yes, were supported just weeks ago by the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens and the majority of crossbench senators. And yet it appears that those same amendments that were good enough just two or three weeks ago are now being dealt with as going too far. There is this premise that we somehow do not need to stay firm and that any deal is better than no deal. Frankly, Senator Di Natale, there were better deals that could have been done. What is so disappointing here is not just the type of deal you have done but that you did it so cheaply and so stupidly. That you were prepared to sell out for so little is unbelievable.

Let us be clear. The government tried to foist these kinds of cheap, dirty deals on everyone in this chamber. They tried to do it with the crossbenchers. They tried to do it with the Labor Party. They went to each Independent individually and made these types of offers. Everyone else who actually had advocated in the past for these tax transparency measures, thought to themselves: 'Let's not sell out. Let's stay true to some principles. Let's believe in something. Let's demand a better deal.' But there was one conversation from Scott Morrison with the leader of the Greens, where he said, 'It's this or nothing,' and, like the doormat that the Greens have become under Senator Di Natale, they just rolled over. They roll over every time. They just fold. They have clearly been learning from the Nats. The Nats are growing—you just got a new member. They just roll over every time.

This is the worst negotiation tactic imaginable. If you want to negotiate with Senator Di Natale, all you have to do is go in there, make some kind of outrageous claim, and he will fold. He folds every time. What is so shocking here is that he has folded on a matter that was something that, frankly, I wrongly believed was a point of principle for the Greens political party. I thought it was something that they actually had passion about and had fought for. I have said in this chamber many, many times, and I have paid respect to the incredible work of former Senator Christine Milne in this place on the issue of tax transparency. To see those measures, those bills, those matters watered down, rolled back under Senator Di Natale is just appalling.

Senator, I want to make it clear to you just exactly who it is that you are actually going to be protecting today. Senator Di Natale made it very clear earlier this morning—he was up-front and frank about it—that he would not be supporting the amendments in the names of Senator Muir and Senator Lambie regarding grandfathering, which is a difficult issue that took a long period of time to build the necessary level of political will. Let us not kid ourselves. One in six of the 1,498 companies we are talking about here, the list of which was published in full by the Guardianis a political donor or government contractor. Senator Di Natale, one in six of them.

Today there was going to be an amendment before the Senate—there are two that are very similar—in the name of either Senator Lambie or Senator Muir, to actually shut down that loophole. This morning you announced that you would be voting against any such amendment. Yesterday we confirmed that the numbers were there in the Senate to pass that amendment. Of course, the big lobbyists and the big donors are beside themselves with glee. The threat of the government having to disclose and actually closing that loophole has now been removed for them. Why? Because Senator Di Natale did a dirty deal—a desperate, dirty deal. Senator Di Natale, I am not aware of whether you actually understood the enormity of what you have sold out or whether you just do not understand this issue well enough. And I really do not know which of those two is worse.

On tax transparency and the issue of disclosure, the argument will be, 'It's a $200 million disclosure instead of a $100 million disclosure. It was an arbitrary figure to begin with.' True. The $100 million figure was meant to capture in the vicinity of the 1,000 largest private companies. That is where the figure came from. The idea was built around: how do you get a figure around the 1,000 largest companies? Almost 75 per cent of them have now been exempted because of the deal that you have done. Why? Because of some threat from the government that they would not pass their own legislation if you tried to improve it on the front of transparency. That is the deal you did. That is the con you fell for. The government's own legislation, their own MAAL bill—it was Joe Hockey's legacy item. It was a bill that everybody supported, and they went to you and said, 'We're not going to pass our own bill that everybody supports unless you fold on everything else.' And Senator Di Natale says, 'Then I'd better fold on everything now.' That is what a negotiation with you must be like. It must be fantastic. I would love to buy a property off you.