Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. I seek the minister's assistance in relation to the revenue raised by the MRRT. As a former senior adviser to the last Australian Treasurer to deliver a budget surplus—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! This outburst is completely disorderly.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot recall a time when the then Treasurer did not actually want to know how much revenue each tax collected! But is the minister not aware that the law does authorise the disclosure of taxpayers ' information to a minister for the purpose of enabling that minister to exercise a power or to perform any function under tax law?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank him for his legal advice!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not thanking him for his legal advice. But on the MRRT: I am not in the habit of having a long legal argument in this chamber. I will leave that to Senator Brandis; I am sure that he will be very happy to engage in that. But the government has made clear the advice that has been received in relation to the operation—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nobody believes you! You are covering up the stuff-up that is your mining tax!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you may not, Senator Cormann, but not everything is the conspiracy theory that you think it is. This is called the administration of—

Honourable senators interjecting —

The PRESIDENT: Order, on both sides!

This is the administration of Australia ' s tax laws, and they are independent of government. Having said that, the government is acutely aware of the importance of transparency in relation to our tax system. As I referenced yesterday, as a consequence of the government ' s awareness, Mr Bradbury, the Assistant Treasurer, is leading work to improve the transparency of Australia ' s business tax system so that this type of information can be released appropriately. Through this, the government wishes to broaden the transparency of the tax system, including in relation to MRRT revenue. This approach that is being led by the Assistant Treasurer would remove any ambiguity from reporting requirements so that these issues can be addressed.

Obviously, continuing to protect taxpayer confidentiality for individuals is essential. But there is a case in the government ' s view to examine whether larger multinational businesses should have the same level of confidentiality about the taxes they have paid. We will approach this issue in a measured, considered and principled way, rather than taking an ad hoc approach to particular taxpayers or particular taxes.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is it not the case that the legislative provisions protecting taxpayer privacy also include an exemption that taxpayer information can be disclosed where the public benefit derived from disclosing outweighs that entity's privacy?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do want to be very clear with the chamber on this issue, as I was when I was acting Treasurer and some information was released publicly. This was not a discretionary decision made by government; this was a decision of the tax office and a matter on which Treasury provided advice and Treasury considered.

Whilst I know that for political reasons the opposition wish to make an issue of this, I think there is a separate issue here, which is the operation of Australia ' s tax laws. These are not discretionary decisions of ministers, and nor should they be. They are decisions which are properly made by the Australian Taxation Office and properly considered by the Treasury. Having said that—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My specific question to the minister was: ' Can you confirm that there is indeed an exemption currently which allows the minister to release information about an individual taxpayer or entity where the public interest outweighs any privacy considerations? '

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I clearly recall Senator Wong saying in response to the first question that she did not think that the Senate was the appropriate place to go into detailed legal debates on interpretation of different provisions in law. Beyond that issue, she has outlined quite a range of relevant information and described the process that Treasury and the tax office have been through. She is attempting, as far as is relevant, to address the question raised.

The PRESIDENT: I am very conscious of the standing orders in respect of the giving of legal opinion in this place. I am listening closely to the minister ' s answer. I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister does have 16 seconds remaining, though, to answer the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was actually attempting to be helpful, but obviously I am not going to get into a legal argument. The point I was making is that the government has not made a decision on this. This decision has been made by those who administer the tax laws.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that the public interest threshold to which I referred has clearly been passed, why is the minister still refusing to release the revenue details for the MRRT? And will the minister at least confirm whether any minister in the government is actually aware of how much money has been raised by the MRRT?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the latter, I think that has been answered publicly previously: Treasury is not in a position to advise ministers, given the provision of the tax act. As to the details of that revenue, given the confidentiality provisions—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you have no idea. It's extraordinary!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You come up with a new tax and you don't know how much it raises. It's ridiculous!

The PRESIDENT: Order! If you wish to debate it, the time is after question time.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

However, the government, as I have said now on a number of occasions in this place, is aware of the desire and the appropriateness of proper transparency in relation to taxation matters. That is why we have seen the announcement from the Assistant Treasurer in relation to measures to increase transparency. But again, as I said, we will do this in a methodical and principled way, rather than the ad hoc way that appears to be what is proposed by the opposition.