Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

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

I ask that the question be divided in respect of each of the amendments and foreshadow that I have an alternative amendment to move in relation to amendment (3) and wish to vote differently in relation to amendments (1) and (2).

The CHAIRMAN: The question before the chair is that the amendments that have been passed by the Senate not be insisted upon. Senators may recall there were three amendments passed by the Senate when it last dealt with this matter. Senator Dastyari has asked that the question be applied individually to each of those three amendments, on the basis that he wishes to replace one of those amendments with his own amendment. That is in order, so I will separate those amendments and deal with them separately. The first question is that the committee does not insist on amendment (1) with which the House has disagreed.

I think it is a shame that there has been a rush to get this legislation through. I believe that there is an hours motion in place which now means that we will not be leaving this chamber until this bill has been dealt with. I think that is a disappointing development for the Greens political party, who have made it pretty clear to us in the past that they do not support these types of gags. But in effect there is a gag being placed here. They realise that the opportunity for proper, detailed discussion, for us to have a proper analysis of the details of the dirty deal that has been done here, has been removed. In the next 24 hours or so we will have to vote on this, and the opportunity to go away and actually talk to people and analyse these amendments is lacking.

It is amazing. We had Senator McKim the other night go on this big rant, in relation to a different piece of legislation, about a lack of information and how quickly and how soon all this had been sprung on him. That was a piece of legislation with amendments that had gone through an entire committee process, that had gone through public canvassing, that had been part of the public debate for weeks, if not months—months of public debate. And yet here we find out that late last night there was a dirty deal being done by Senator Di Natale. It is amazing what one night in in the Treasurer's office can get you—one night with the Treasurer. I have heard of deals done cheap. I just was not sure that things were done that cheap.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Macfarlane's joined the National Party!

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

Ian Macfarlane has joined the National Party? Jeez.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll take anybody!

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

They will take anyone.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll have Richard Di Natale next!

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'd get it dirt cheap!

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

That's right. You would get it cheap. I am not sure what you would have to do in the office—

Senator Edwards interjecting—

I am outraged, Senator Edwards. I am disgusted. I am appalled. Look, I am fairly new to this place, so maybe I have been naive the whole time because, frankly, I expected better from Senator Di Natale. I expected better from a Greens political party, the rhetoric of which on this issue has been so strong for so many years, who have always said the right thing, and when the opportunity comes for them to actually stay tough and force a better bill, he folds. And he folds under some lie or premise that there is some kind of threat that the bill will not pass and the government is going to dump its own legislation. Senator Di Natale, through the chair: if you believe that, you will believe anything. The idea that you are going to fold on every matter, every issue and every point of principle just because the government is prepared to do this—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He'd better take his bat and ball and go home. Seriously. You fell for it.

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

No, no—I think it is important to understand what would have happened if Senator Di Natale had stood firm on this. The government would have had one of two options. One is that they would have had to bring back their own bill today and they would have accepted what the Senate was going to do and adopted it. He believes they would have gone all the way to $200 million, but they could not possibly have gone to $100 million because those 500 companies need to be protected. Why do those 500 companies need to be protected, Senator Di Natale? Why would you fold on that? Why would you fold on those 500 companies needing to be protected? The other option is that the government would have had to bring back the bill early in the new year because the MAAL bill involved measures they needed to get through for their G20 commitments.

That was the leverage to get a better bill. You have sold out the leverage to get better legislation. That is the con you fell for. They would have had to bring it back early in the new year, at the latest. The fact that they needed that legislation to pass before the budget would have been the opportunity for those of us who believe in transparency, who believe in a better bill and who believe in more accountability to get the best legislation. But at the first chance you got, you went soft.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It needed to start on 1 January.

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

No, this legislation could comfortably—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tax reform needs to start on 1 January. This is the last sitting day.

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

There would have been amendments and then it would have been early February legislation. But you are ramming it through at the first chance, the first opportunity, the first sit-down—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is nonsense.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Edwards, you will have an opportunity if you want to contribute to the debate. We are in committee.

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

Mate, we are going to have all day to do this, Sean.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Proper title, please.

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

Sorry; Senator Edwards—who, may I say, is looking remarkably handsome now that he has shaved off his moustache. Senator Di Natale is doing this at the first opportunity, the first sit down and, I hate to say it, the first date—faults and everything. So we have a situation where the entire leverage of this movement and what this campaign had been building towards, with all the work that had been done over two full years now not only by the Labor Party—and the Labor Party played a very big role—but also people like Christine Milne, community groups, activities and movements everywhere has been sold out.

I am going to have a lot to say today about how some of these groups feel about it all. He has gone to all of them and said, 'I'm going to fold on the first opportunity I get. I'm going to fold because it is easier to fold.' Yes, Senator Di Natale, it is always easier to cop out. It is always easier to give up on principle. It is always easier to say, 'You know what? They are a bunch of really powerful companies and the government here is playing a big role in protecting them, and the easiest thing for me to do is just to have the debate go away.' It is disappointing, it is disgusting and it is horrible that someone who professes to actually be passionate about these issues, who professes to care about these issues, who professes that these issues are a priority for them and their political party would come into this chamber and sell out on this point of principle.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was one point in particular that Senator Whish-Wilson made earlier that I took some offence at that, and that was when he claimed that Labor were just upset because the Greens had done the deal before Labor. Let me just put some facts on the record. Last night we rejected the final begging, grovelling approaches from the big end of town's representatives on the other side of the chamber and we said, 'No, we will not compromise on this. You have to fold and you have to deliver this bill with full tax transparency.' When offered the same 30 pieces of silver, we rejected it. Those who have now signed this deal—the political geniuses sitting down there preparing their notes to speak—took the 30 pieces of silver.

So I want to absolutely put on the record that, when Senator Whish-Wilson said that Labor were just upset because the Greens did the deal before we did, he could not have misled this chamber more seriously and, importantly, besmirched those on this side, who have been campaigning for full tax transparency for a vast number of years along with many, many members of the Greens. And they will be horrified that the geniuses in charge of the Greens decided that they could do a filthy deal and exempt all of these companies that are donors to the Liberal Party. That is on their head and their head alone.

If you had a spine or some political courage, there was no need to roll over and give the government this bill. They needed this bill. It was important legislation. It is flawed and it does not go far enough, but the government needed this bill—and all they had to do was agree to reveal the level of tax that these companies were paying. Let us not forget that Malcolm Turnbull's own company was in there. But you have chosen to give the government a leave pass. The Australian public is being kept in the dark because of the Australian Greens' lack of spine on this. And you will pay a price—and you deserve to pay a price.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was a union official for 27 years, and my day-to-day job was negotiation. Some of the negotiations that you entered into were negotiations that you did not think that you had a lot of chance of winning. But you had to work out a strategy, you had to sit down and look at what you can achieve and you had to push a little bit further than what you thought the employer was going to give you. When the employer eye-balled you and said, 'That's all we've got. If you don't accept what we are offering, you can go on strike or you can leave. You can do what you like, but we are not going to give you anymore,' that is when the tough choices had to be made. That is when you had to dig in. That is when working people dug in and said, 'We will call the bluff.' If workers and unions had behaved like the Greens have behaved in this set of negotiations, workers would still be earning very little, their penalty rates would be gone and their annual leave loading would be gone.

From time to time you actually have to show some courage and be tough in negotiations—the exact opposite to what the Greens have done in relation to these negotiations on tax avoidance and tax transparency in this country. They have just given in. They were weak in their strategic approach to the negotiations. They were incapable of understanding that what we should have achieved here was much more transparency and a much better outcome for the public purse and the national interest. The Greens did not show any courage. They did not show any negotiating skills. They did not show any capacity to actually understand the importance of this issue to the public purse. It is tragic that they would keel over so quickly to the Liberal Party and the National Party on this issue.

When you see Senator Heffernan up defending the Greens you know there is a problem. You know something has gone wrong. What has gone wrong is that Senator Di Natale did not have the capacity, did not have the courage and did not have the commitment to actually deal with this issue effectively, and I am not sure whether he had the backing of his party to do so. By simply giving in at the first sign of a bullet flying past you, by simply conceding at the first sign of the coalition eyeballing you and staring you down, demonstrates a major weakness in the Greens and a major weakness in their strategy and a major weakness in their leader's capacity to understand what is important for the Australian public.

You see, this issue now means that the political donors—the multimillionaires that are running companies around this country—who donate to the National Party and the Liberal Party, who fund their election campaigns, will now not pay their fair share of tax. They will continue to hide exactly how much tax they pay, yet ordinary workers in this country and families in this country are being told by those opposite that everything is on the table in terms of tax, including a GST. We know that a GST would leave families thousands of dollars worse off. They are maintaining a GST on the table to take more tax from ordinary working families who are battling to keep their heads above water now, battling to ensure that they can put school shoes on their kids' feet, battling to buy books for their kids to go to school and probably have not had a holiday for some years. They are the ones who are being targeted by this mob over here, while their mates who donate to them, who donate millions of dollars to the Liberal Party election coffers, are being let off scot-free. That is the problem here: if you donate to the Liberal Party and if you are a mate of the Liberal Party, then they will cover for you in terms of how much tax you pay.

The perfect example of that is 7-Eleven. The head of 7-Eleven presided over a company that ripped off migrant workers, that ripped off 457 workers and that ripped off every franchisee it could. Do they have to indicate how much tax they have paid? No, they do not, and why don't they? Because the Greens capitulated. Because the Greens did not have the courage, the capacity or the will to take on the coalition for transparency.

If you go back to the former Greens leader, the Greens were not a party that was determined to be in the mainstream. What is the mainstream for the Greens? Obviously, the mainstream for the Greens is to sit side-by-side with the coalition and their big business backers to hide what is happening in relation to tax in this country. If that is the mainstream, it is not the mainstream where the Labor Party wants to be. We do not want to be there. We want to be in the spot that makes sure that everybody pays their fair share of tax, especially the multimillionaires and especially those companies that are ripping off workers and want to get rid of their penalty rates while not paying an appropriate amount of tax in this country.

What did Christine Milne say back a few years ago? She said, 'Corporate tax avoidance in Australia is endemic.' Will this bill deal with the endemic tax avoidance? Of course it won't. The Greens have sold out their former leader in terms of the vision and the values that Christine Milne had. She said, 'Billions are being lost to Australians via so-called aggressive tax planning'. Will this bill resolve the aggressive tax planning for those that are ripping off the tax system in this country? Of course it won't. So Senator Di Natale and the Greens again have sold out on a value and a principle that former Greens leader Christine Milne aspired to achieve. Former Greens leader Senator Milne said:

Big corporates are exploiting loopholes in our tax laws and the global nature of their business to avoid tax. That means that it is Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey's job to act now.

Does this bill resolve that position? No, it does not, because it still leaves corporations in this country ripping off the taxpayer. She went onto say:

Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are going to extreme lengths to defend the indefensible and protect the profits of the big end of town.

This was a press release from Senator Milne. I hope she puts a press release out today and says that Senator Di Natale and the Greens are going to extreme lengths to defend the indefensible and protect the profits of the big end of town, because that is exactly what is happening here. Everything that Senator Milne stood for is being trashed by this Greens party room today—absolutely trashed. What does this do about defending the indefensible? A Greens leader standing here defending what they are doing now is indefensible. Senator Milne's press release goes on to say that:

As well as increased transparency and reporting of subsidiaries, strengthening the tax act on profit shifting and properly resourcing the tax office, some further immediate steps we can take have been identified during the inquiry.

So Senator Milne kicked off the inquiry, Senator Dastyari took on that inquiry and took it to levels I do not think many other people would have taken it to in terms of exposing the rorts that were going on and exposing the unfairness of the tax system in this country. Senator Dastyari has done that and, after all that work, what do we have? We have the Greens doing a deal in return for what? In return for nothing. Did they get any deal on tax profit sharing and tax profit shifting, as their former leader wanted? No, they did not. Did they get more resources for the tax office as a result of negotiations on this bill? No, they did not. They sold out completely and utterly. Why did they sell out? Because they want to be so-called 'relevant'. They want to be in the mainstream .

My lesson for the Greens is that you do not become relevant and you do not judge the mainstream as supporting tax avoidance in this country and, if you continue to support tax avoidance in this country, what you will get is more pressure on ordinary families to give up more of their support systems from government. The coalition will continue to try to cut pensions. The coalition will continue to try to cut support from seniors. The coalition will continue to cut health in this country, to cut education funding in this country and will force the states to argue for a GST that will hit everybody and will hit the poorest hardest. That is the strategy that the coalition have set out to achieve.

I never thought for a minute that the Greens would be the ones who would not have any idea about that strategy or would capitulate to that strategy so quickly, capitulate in a way that leaves ordinary people in this country open to further attacks on their standard of living while the big end of town walks away untouched. That is what has happened with the Greens and, if that is the mainstream, the Greens should not be in the mainstream on these issues because the mainstream, according to your mates across on the bench with whom you are voting today, is about protecting the tax avoiders, protecting those who have wealth, power and privilege, making sure that inequality in this country increases because the big end of town, those who are rich, will not be paying the proper tax and ordinary battlers out there who go to work every day, battling hard to make a quid, battling hard to get food on the table for their family, they pay their mortgage or they pay their rent, they are going to have to pay more because this bill allows the tax rorters, the tax scammers and the tax avoiders to get away with it. That is what the coalition have done—backed in the avoiders, the scammers and the rorters. That is what has happened here.

There are people who are on standard of living that ordinary Australians could never dream of because they are not paying their fair share of tax. They are getting richer by the year as the poorer in this country battle every day to put food on the family table. That is what the Greens have done. How obnoxious is it that the Greens could have descended so low in a debate of such importance. They have descended to a position of simply backing in the rorters, the tax avoiders and the people who do not want to make a contribution to health, to education. That is what has happened with the Greens here. What former Senator Christine Milne said was that she wanted:

… the Abbott government to immediately make public the ATO's settlement register so that everyone knows to what extent we are missing out on revenue from the big end of town.

Does this meet the test that the former Leader of the Greens set? No, it absolutely does not. The Greens are an absolute disgrace on this issue. They have sold out the working class in this country. They have capitulated to the Liberals. They are simply supporting tax avoidance and tax rorting. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to be a bit boring and ask a number of questions about the technical aspects of these amendments because insofar as we are dealing with the first set of amendments and it was entirely appropriate that—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Relevant, I think you mean.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't taunt me, Senator Canavan. I just want to get on with it. We will never know whether we could have got a better deal. My preference was to have got a better deal, but I am not going to engage in who is to blame—I do not think that is helpful. I want to understand this. In the context of general purpose accounting, which is a real issue of concern, this is about companies with turnover of a billion dollars or more—the Googles, the Apples, the Microsofts—which for many years have been getting away with special purpose accounting where they give very little information about transfer pricing and about a whole range of measures, where they simply get away with blue murder by saying as little as possible about their finances. I moved the amendment; it was supported by the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens and a number of my crossbench colleagues. That passed and this is one of the amendments that is in contention.

From the brief discussion I have had this morning with government advisers in relation to this, the Australian Greens, through Senator Di Natale, will be moving an amendment relating to general purpose accounting, but it will be different in some respects. It will be different in respect of the reporting requirement. Instead of going to the ATO, it will go to ASIC. I do not have a problem with that but I do have a series of questions to ask about it.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ASIC have no money.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron says that ASIC have no money—well, they have money, but whether they can do the enforcement that they are meant to is another issue. So I would be grateful if the minister could advise: in what material respects is the amendment being proposed by Senator Di Natale any different to the amendment that the Senate agreed upon in terms of general-purpose accounting? That is the first question. I understand that the first difference may be in terms of reporting to ASIC or to the ATO. The other concern is: will this do what is intended in the amended form by the government? Will those companies that have been grandfathered out of the system, that have been exempted, be exempt from these provisions in respect of what the government is proposing?

That is for starters. I know I am being boring, but I want to deal with the substantive measures here. I want to see what we are getting as an alternative in respect of this and whether it will deal with that key issue. At the risk of damaging his journalistic career, I call this the Michael West amendment, because Fairfax business journalist Michael West has been writing about this articulately for some considerable time and it was his investigative work that influenced me to put this amendment up in the first place.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify, the government is not moving any amendments and the government is not intending to move any amendments. The only motion the government has moved, that I have moved on behalf of the government, is that the committee does not insist on its amendments with which the House has disagreed. Now Senator Dastyari has asked for that question to be taken in detail one by one, and that is fine, but the government does not intend to move any amendments.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that moving responsibility from the ATO to ASIC is fraught with danger. The key regulator, ASIC, themselves warn that their ability to have an impact and to do their job properly and supervise markets and companies was substantially reduced by the $120 million cut in the first coalition budget, which brought so much devastation to families around this country. We all remember that first budget. We remember the former Treasurer and Senator Cormann sitting out there with their Havanas, puffing away with great satisfaction after they had ripped into pensioners, ripped into welfare recipients and forced more costs onto workers every time they went to see the doctor. They were very satisfied with that. But what the public did not understand was that some of the regulation that put checks and balances into the corporate system was also ripped away in that first budget, to the extent that the ASIC chairman, Greg Medcraft, had said that their capacity to fulfil their role would be substantially reduced.

I recently participated in the insolvency inquiry into the building and construction industry, and what ASIC were clearly demonstrating there was that they have limited capacity to handle corporate malfeasance because they do not have the money. They just do not have the resources. So to put a proposition here that takes responsibility away from the ATO, which has had its funding cut as well, and gives it to ASIC and to present that as an acceptable proposition—to put that responsibility to an organisation that does not have the money and the resources to fulfil its existing obligations and responsibilities—shows just what this bill is about. It is about making sure that there is no capacity for the regulators to actually track down the tax rorters and the tax avoiders.

How the Greens could possibly agree to that amendment beggars belief. Surely someone in the Greens understands that both the tax office and ASIC are being starved of funding as part of the austerity approach to 'balance the budget' from the coalition. It was one of these 'budget emergencies'. We do not hear about budget emergencies anymore, even though our position is deteriorating under the coalition. We do not hear about that anymore, but we still see the cuts going into the corporate regulators who are there to try and ensure that business pays its fair share of tax. This proposition that you take it away from the ATO and put it into ASIC and ASIC will be able to handle it is just not true, and it should not be agreed to. Mr Medcraft is saying they want to push the case for user-funded models, because they are desperate to get cash so that they can do their job.

In that committee I was in it was clear that people could 'phoenix' companies in the building and construction industry and generally across the economy. That means they could deliberately kill a company and leave it with all its debts and set up another company that would be a new company—it would be what is described as a phoenix company. The evidence we had was that they could do that with impunity because ASIC did not have the resources or the funding to deal properly with phoenixing in any industry in this country. But now we are being told that, as part of this bill, we will take more responsibility from the ATO and put it into ASIC, and ASIC will be able to handle it. Well, ASIC will not be able to handle it.

The outcome of that will be exactly what the coalition want—that is, to ensure that there are no checks and balances on their mates that provide the funding for their election resources. That is what it is about. They just do not want their mates in the big end of town to pay their fair share of tax. Everyone else in the country can pay a higher GST—15 per cent GST. We know the secret plans there. That was reported yesterday. It is there—15 per cent GST on everything; on health, on education, on fresh food. That is where it is at.

Yet, what we have from the other side now are all these manoeuvres to try to make sure that if there is any capacity for this bill to deal with tax evasion properly, it will be diminished because ASIC are the organisation that have to deal with it and ASIC will not have the resources. This is another demonstration that Senator Di Natale was comprehensively outmanoeuvred, comprehensively done over, comprehensively pushed aside by whoever negotiated on behalf of the coalition—a great victory for the coalition, a great defeat for the Australian public. The Australian public are the ones who are going to have to pay the price for this. To actually contemplate asking ASIC to do more oversight and overview work with reduced resources is just not an acceptable proposition.

We even had Nationals Senator John Williams calling for a user-pays system to be introduced for financial advisers so that ASIC could better police the industry. I have a lot of differences with Senator Williams, and certainly the National Party, but there is one thing you can say about Senator Williams: he is on to this issue; he is on to the issue about corporate rorting. He is a lone voice in the coalition on this. He has understood the need for extra resources. Why couldn't the Greens understand that? Why couldn't the Greens understand that by moving any responsibility out of the tax office in to ASIC, we end up moving the responsibility to an organisation that does not have the resources or the capacity to deal with this effectively?

It is bad enough being totally outmanoeuvred in your negotiating position, as the Greens have been, it is bad enough just capitulating, as the Greens have, and it is bad enough making workers in this country pay more because you are not prepared to make sure that the big end of town pays their fair share, but to come here and argue on technical points that ASIC can do the job is just a complete misunderstanding of how things work and what has happened under this Abbott Turnbull government.

They look after the big end of town. They look after your mates. They do not care about those who are battling to look after their families, who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who know how difficult it is to buy the school uniforms and get the kids off to school, who know how expensive it is to go on public transport that could cost an extra 15 per cent in terms of GST. They do not care. I never thought I would see the day when the Greens would not care either. By passing this amendment, or supporting this bill, it shows that they really do not care, or they either do not care or do not understand the key issues affecting the Australian public in trying to simply get a fair go on taxation.

Capitulating to the negotiating strategy of the coalition is not about being on the side of the angels, as the Greens would have had us have it this morning. It is not about being on the side of the angels; it is about capitulating. It is about an absolutely amateurish approach to negotiation. It is about not having the courage to stand up for your convictions. It is about not having the values that your previous leader had in relation to making sure that everybody pays their fair share. What a capitulation from the Greens. What a disgrace. For a party who say they are progressive, for a party who say that they stand up for the battler, it is an absolute nonsense.

This is an area where this Senate had an opportunity to make sure that the rorters, the tax avoiders and the big businesses that are ripping off their workers paid their fair share of tax. This bill makes sure that that will not happen because there will be secrecy in place—we will not know what is in there. Joe Stiglitz, the Nobel winning economist, spoke about information asymmetry. That means you need to get all the information that you can for a properly operating market. Well, the market will not operate properly when you have certain companies that are not paying tax and nobody knows what is happening. There can be no public pressure on these companies because it is all kept quiet and secret.

Why is it kept quiet and secret? It is kept quiet and secret because these are the people who fund the coalition's election campaigns. They are the ones who are out arguing to rip off workers, get rid of their penalty rates, rip off 457 workers, rip off migrant workers. The big end of town are the people who are being protected under this bill. They will not even be required to disclose how much tax they are paying. ASIC will not be able to enforce it because they do not have the resources. This is an absolute joke. This is an area where the Greens have been absolutely outmanoeuvred, treated like absolute mugs, and they have not done what their previous leader said they should do—that is, deal with a comprehensive problem, an endemic problem, that meant that ordinary working people paid more tax. We heard that we were starting a journey. You do not start a long journey without a suitcase or without anything in it. Let me tell you: this long journey that the Greens think that they are starting on—the suitcase is empty, because they get no extra resources for ASIC. They get no extra resources for the ATO. They get no protection for the ordinary families of this country. It is an absolute debacle what has happened here.

I cannot understand the Greens for a minute who argue that they are the protectors of working people in this country. What an absolute joke! How can you protect ordinary working families when you simply give in to the big end of town—when you do not have the backbone, when you do not have the intellect and when you do not have the strength and courage of your convictions to stand up to the Havana-smoking frontbenchers over there who want to rip working people off? How can you have any credibility in this debate at all?

This is a party that has completely lost its way. What for? They want to be relevant—you are not relevant to the Australian public, if you allow the rip-offs to go on. You are not relevant to the Australian public, if you do not stand up for them. You are simply trying to achieve relevance, and relevance at any cost. Relevance of numbers and year do not automatically mean relevance for the Australian public. I think the relevance that is important is to stand up against the rip-off merchants, the big end of town and the rorters that are out there.

Senator Milne had it right: the former leader of the Greens identified the problems and the issues that had to be dealt with. Senator Dastyari took that work on, and we have got a way forward. But the Greens capitulated. They let the Havana-smoking frontbenchers over there—the supporters of the big end of town—take them to the cleaners with absolutely no capacity to negotiate, no courage to eyeball the coalition and no attempt to support ordinary working people. It is a disgrace. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst we are dealing with the first lot of amendments—appropriately moved by Senator Dastyari so that it will be split—it is relevant to understand, before we vote on this, the context of the amendments that are being proposed as a result of the agreement between the Australian Greens and the coalition in relation to this. Senator Di Natale has an amendment that he will be moving that seeks to supplant the amendment that was accepted and voted on by the Senate—3D, reporting of information about significant global entities. My question to the Minister for Finance is: to what extent is what has been agreed between the government and the Australian Greens in terms of the significant global entities reporting requirements—this relates to general purpose accounts? It is very important to find out, as Senator Cameron alluded to, how the Googles, the Apples and these large multinational corporations and pharmaceutical companies, Big Pharma—and I acknowledge the work that Senator Dastyari has done on this and indeed former Senator Milne.

I am just trying to understand for the purposes of this debate: what are the differences between the two? When you have international tax experts who do not work for the big end of town asking questions, will it be based on consolidated revenue—I am asking specific questions, for instance, whether it applies to consolidated revenues? Does it have to be a general purpose financial statement Tier 1 as set out in accounting standard AASB 1053, the same as for companies listed on the ASX—these are technical questions but they are important as to how this will work. I just want to make sure that it does what it is intended to, so I ask these questions genuinely of the finance minister. I just want to get to the core of the substance of what we are dealing with here.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, the amendments that Senator Xenophon is referring to, at this stage, have not been moved—the Senate does not actually have these amendments in front of it. However, the only difference I am advised is that they are better drafted. They actually do give effect to the intention that Senator Xenophon previously articulated. The amendments that were previously put to and adopted by the Senate actually were not technically as effective.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to put a number of questions to the finance minister. I do not have an issue, if the Minister for Finance gets back to the committee stages not immediately but within a few minutes or half an hour so we can just understand this, because they are technical in nature.

I am very pleased that the finance minister has said on the record that they are better drafted—although I think that the Senate drafting office does a pretty damn good job, given their resources and the pressures they are put under. He says that this will give effect to what is intended. What was intended in the course of the debate on and the committee stages of this bill was to ensure that general purpose accounting requirements apply. So I am very pleased and I thank the finance minister for saying that.

My specific questions are: firstly, is the test for the application based on consolidated revenues as defined by accounting standards—that is, the same as in a large proprietary company test in the Corporations Act? For ease of reference to the advisers, I will provide a copy of these questions—that might be useful.

The second question I want to put on record is: does it apply to the Australian group defined as the ultimate Australian holding company and all of the entities it controls? Thirdly, does it relate to general purpose financial statements Tier 1 as set out in accounting standard AASB 1053—that is, the same as for companies listed on the ASX? Fourthly, is the same timely financial information being lodged with the ATO no later than four months after year end—the same deadline as in the Corporations Act? Fifthly, does it have to be audited and the lead audit partner has to rotate every five years—the same requirements applying for the Corporations Act?

I genuinely thank the finance minister for saying that this is about a better drafting for the intent of what the Senate wanted to do in terms of general-purpose accounts. I am grateful for that. I will go and see the advisers and give them a copy of these specific questions.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the question in relation to timing is that under this amendment the timing would be connected to the timing of the tax return, so the timing is different.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess my journey on tax advocacy really started in around 2006. I am just really disgusted that we are here today responding to a dirty deal done by the Greens in the middle of the night. It just shows how little they understand what they are actually doing. But I want to talk for a moment about my journey. It shows again the inexperience of the Greens. I come out of a trade union, and I have spent the majority of my working life working with low-paid workers.

In 2006 we thought we, along with members, had done a really good deal at a public hospital. We had got workers a four per cent wage increase. But, when we put it to the general membership, they rejected it overwhelmingly. We were really shocked because we did think this was a good deal. We had done it with members. The issue that they raised with us was that the cost of living for them had gotten to the stage where they needed a much bigger increase than the four per cent that was on offer by the state government. Their rent had gone up. Their utilities costs had gone up. Food costs had gone up. And four per cent really was not going to cut it.

So we sat down with union delegates and low-paid hospital workers—orderlies, cleaners, personal care workers, enrolled nurses, technicians and so on—and we worked out that there was no way we could ask the state government for the sort of money, the sort of wage increase, that those low-paid hospital workers needed to cover their costs. So we started to look at what the tax system offered us. What did it offer for low-paid workers? Obviously, to try to lobby the state government and agitate for the state government to give workers the sort of increase in wages they needed was not possible without additional revenue. That was really when my tax journey started. It was absolutely motivated by low-income workers in Western Australia saying to me, as their elected representative, 'A four per cent wage increase just doesn't cut it.'

It just shows how out of touch the Greens are that they do not appreciate, that they do not understand, because none of them have ever really been in front of low-paid workers, that the deal that they have done here today to lock away the transparency of private companies absolutely hurts low-income workers because it stops the government getting increased revenue. I have heard the Greens go on about how we have a revenue problem in this country. It just shows that their words speak a lot louder than their actions. Someone who really believes that we have a revenue problem in this country would not have done the dirty deal that they have done in the middle of the night. It hurts low-paid workers, like hospital workers in Western Australia, because the government continues to get a shrinking revenue. Let us see how they explain that.

But of course low-income workers do not support the Greens. Low-income workers do not look to the Greens for their salvation. Labor stand for low-income workers, and we stand for tax transparency.

It is amazing. I am not quite sure how the Greens who have sat on the Senate committee that has looked at the kinds of rorts of 7-Eleven—a company on the secret list, a company the Greens have just given an exemption to—think. How do they justify the stories we have heard from 7-Eleven workers who have been ripped off? Yet today they have sat with the government and said, 'It's okay for 7-Eleven to rip workers off, and we're going to continue to allow them to sit on a secret list so that ordinary Australians don't really get to see the sorts of profits that 7-Eleven have made.' I can tell you that 7-Eleven have given us the run-around on that Senate inquiry. We keep calling them back, and we keep calling them back, and we ask them more questions, and they can hide. They can hide, and the Greens on that committee are going to allow 7-Eleven to continue to hide.

I wonder what the Greens will say to the low-paid cleaners in this place, who need the government to increase its revenue so they can get a decent wage. They are on strike this week. Those cleaners are on strike this week. Maybe the Greens have not noticed. They certainly do not care, because if they cared they would not have done the dirty deal they have done this week. It shows how out of touch they are with low-paid workers, particularly cleaners cleaning their offices. What are they going to say to them? They say: 'Look, we've done a dirty deal. We're going to allow these companies—companies that ripped off workers—to continue to be on a secret list. We're going to allow these companies to avoid paying tax. That's what we're going to do as the Greens party.' What a disgrace.

Last night we had an event here at Parliament House which a couple of the Greens came to. When you came to meet with those sacked MV Portland workers last night, you did not have the decency to tell them you had done a dirty deal with the government. You proudly stood there and said, 'We're with workers.' Well, I tell you what: I have already told the MV Portland workers that came here last night that the Greens do not stand with them. How could they front that function last night and say to those MV Portland workers, 'We're with you'? Clearly, the Greens are not with them, because no-one who stands with sacked MV Portland workers would have done that deal that the Greens did in the middle of the night. Had they already done the deal when they were standing in front of the MV Portland workers? Who knows? But you do not stand there and say one thing, 'We're with you,' and then turn around and do this dirty deal with the government on the other hand. You do not do that. It is hypocrisy.

And we have heard them today—what wusses. I am glad none of them were union officials, because boy they have sold out really easily. You have to be tough in negotiations. You have to stand up to the government, and this is a just cause. The Australian tax network must be throwing its hands up saying, 'We've done all this work for a couple of years and the Greens, in the middle of the night, on the second last day of sitting for this year, struck a deal with the government.'

My union, United Voice, have advocated so hard for tax reform, because tax reform is a salvation for low-income workers. I do not know what they will be saying about the dirty deal the Greens have done this morning. Again, it just demonstrates that they have no understanding of what it is like to walk a day in the shoes of a low-paid cleaner, a low-paid hospital worker, a low-paid early childhood educator or a low-paid hospitality worker. They have no idea, because they so quickly sold them out.

They are allowing these companies to continue behind this veil of secrecy. This morning we heard Senator Dastyari say in this place that one in six of those companies on that secret list are either political donors or government contractors, and of course we know who they donate to: they donate to the Liberal Party and the National Party. That is the deal the Greens have done. Let them hold their heads up and stand like they did last night with the MV Portland workers and say that the Greens were proud to do a deal that continues to let one in six on that list donate to the Liberal Party and the National Party in order to get government contracts but to hide their tax obligations. That is the deal the Greens have done in the middle of the night.

As Senator Dastyari also told us this morning, the $100 million figure was not just plucked out of the air, and the Greens know that. It was there because it captures 1,000 of Australia's largest private companies. We all understand that the Turnbull government always wants to protect its mates at the big end of town, and we also know that Mr Turnbull and his wife have a company that was on the secret list. A couple of weeks ago in this place, when that list was first published, I stood up and informed the Senate of that—and guess what those opposite did? They tried to call a point of order on me. They did not want me, through the Senate, to tell the Australian public that Mr Turnbull and his wife were on that list. During my 10-minute speech, I think they got up at least twice to pull that point of order on me: 'We can't have a Labor senator from Western Australia saying that Mr Turnbull and his wife, Lucy, are on that list!' The Greens know that, and that is who are they are protecting. Who would have thought the Greens would line up behind the Prime Minister of this country and run a protection racket? That is what they have done today, and I am angry about it, because I stand for low-paid Australians.

I stand for paying my tax, and I have never, ever complained about paying my tax. It is my obligation as a citizen in this country to pay my tax, not to set up some shonky scheme to avoid it. I do not hold any shares, and you can look at my senators' interests. I have no interest in hiding my tax. I do not have private companies. I want to pay my tax, and I can tell you that members I work with at United Voice also want to pay their tax. Why is it that we pay our taxes but the Turnbull government and the Greens want to allow the Prime Minister and companies like 7-Eleven to be on this secret list to avoid that transparency? Why have the Greens done that? It is because they do not represent ordinary working Australians; that is why the Greens have done that. And how dare they stand with those MV Portland workers last night and somehow pretend they are with them? They are not with people when they do that—they are absolutely not.

This legislation is flawed because it does not go far enough, and for Labor it was worth hanging out for a better deal. Just two weeks ago the Greens were with us, but we heard Senator Di Natale stand in this place and say this bit of legislation was 'better than nothing'. It is not. We should have stared the government down, but again the Greens are trying to find some relevancy, just like the deal they did a couple of months back that affected part pensions in this country. And now most organisations believe the Greens sold out middle Australia with that deal, which they did. They are just not experienced at this stuff. It is not where they come from. Their hearts are not with ordinary working Australians. Their hearts are now with the Turnbull government, who just wants to continue to protect these big companies, and this is not good enough.

We know where the Liberals stand on tax transparency. They have always voted against Labor's move. They are predictable. We know they want to protect their mates at the big end of town. They voted against the moves that Labor put up when we were in government time and time again. It is what we expect from them. Their constituency is very clear. They do not support ordinary working Australians. They have been completely silent on what is happening to those Australian seafarers on the MV Portland. They apparently have little understanding of or compassion for cleaners on strike in this building this week. They took money out of the pockets of early childhood educators. They took money out of the pockets of aged-care workers, and now the Greens have joined them. That is now what the Greens stand for. Well, let's see where the Greens stand on the GST. We know where Labor stands. We oppose a big fat new tax. We oppose an increase in the GST to 15 per cent. We oppose it. We believe it, and it is who we are.

It is not who the Greens are. Maybe the next thing they will be trotting up to support the government on is a big, fat new increase in the GST to 15 per cent and putting it on everything. They do not represent low-paid workers; Labor does. That is who our constituency is. We know the damage a GST would do to low-income earners. But let's see where the Greens go next on the GST—striving for relevance, clinging to the tails of the Turnbull government. What a place to find yourself in at the end of the year. What a place to be. I am proud to be Labor. I am proud to stand for tax transparency. (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been told quite a bit in the last week about the government's desire to have a mature, grown-up conversation about taxation. To that end the government has been keen to assure us that they have not ruled out GST. In fact, not a single member of the government has been willing to rule out the introduction of an increased GST in either its level or the breadth of its application.

But I will stay to government senators that it is a pretty funny way to start a mature conversation.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that this is a wide-ranging debate, but there is a question before the chair and the question before the chair does not relate in any way, shape or form to the GST or other matters that the senator has started to touch on. The issue that we are dealing with is a government bill to combat multinational tax avoidance and how the Senate proposes to deal with a position adopted in the House of Representatives. I ask you to draw the senator back to the question before the chair.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: I am simply seeking to place the matters before this chamber in the context of the broader debate on taxation.

The CHAIRMAN: While the minister is right—there is a question before the chair—Senator McAllister has only been speaking for less than a minute. We will see whether her comments become relevant in due course.

I simply wanted to observe that it is a funny way to have a conversation about taxation when all of the things that do seem on the table relate to penalties for low-income people in the tax-and-transfer system. Very few of the things that are on the table go to the question of corporate taxation and of the big end of town paying its fair share. That is, of course, the debate that we are having here this morning.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 was an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that they would be even-handed in this mature conversation that we are embarking upon about taxation. Sadly, that is not what has been presented to us this morning and is not what has been presented to us over recent months. This bill in general has been supported by Labor, but our sense is that it is utterly inadequate in addressing the very real challenges of corporate tax avoidance that are presented to us. The bill, of course, takes a completely untested approach to closing some of the loopholes present in our corporate tax system. There are no precedents for the approach around the world.

The extraordinary thing—and I remember looking at this on budget evening—is that in the budget papers the measures provided for in this bill could not be quantified. Instead of a number, the usual thing that one expects to see in budget papers, there was a series of asterisks which substituted for an actual quantified assessment of the impact of this bill on levels of revenue for the government. I think that tells you quite a lot about the seriousness with which the government has approached this task. I draw people's attention to the way that we might have been treated if we had put forward a set of propositions around corporate tax reform but just put a series of asterisks in place. That would have been laughed out of town. That would have been a case for serious mockery. But this government has had the effrontery to present their arguments with absolutely zero information about what the likely impacts of the bill will be in addressing serious problems.

The specific questions that the chamber is debating this morning go to transparency. It has been the subject of quite some examination in both the Senate Economics References Committee and here in the chamber over the last two years, as previous speakers have pointed out. Of course, when last in government, the senators on this side of the chamber and Labor ministers took this issue seriously. We passed legislation in government that required the Australian Taxation Office to publish information about the income and tax paid by companies earning more than $100 million. Ever since we put that legislation through, this has been the source of real anxiety for the government but, more particularly, real anxiety for the very wealthy individuals who fear that their own tax affairs may be the subject of additional scrutiny and, quite frankly, should they be scrutinised, might not really stand up to that scrutiny.

The truth is that there are quite a number of companies in this country that are in legally grey areas. The ATO has said that privately owned corporate groups, often controlled by a wealthy individual or a family, pose significant tax compliance risks. These are the very companies that our legislation sough to target and these are the very companies that the government today, with the agreement of the Australian Greens, is seeking to exempt from scrutiny.

The thing about these companies is that in many instances their arrangements may well be legal. It may be that they are in strict compliance with the tax laws in a black-letter sense. But if we do want to have a mature and serious debate about taxation then we need to understand that, in certain instances, people may well be in compliance with the law but nonetheless the practices that the law enables may not be fair. They may not see very large, very wealthy organisations paying a level of tax that ordinary Australians struggling to get by would consider reasonable. They may also see particular individuals using a large number of companies interlinked in complex ways to avoid paying the income tax that they also would be reasonably expected by the rest of the public to pay.

Throughout this debate there have been people on the other side of the chamber who have said that the publication of this information, putting this information into the public domain, could cause misunderstanding, and that perhaps the Australian public are not smart enough or mature enough to understand the information that would be put before them when this information is published. My assessment is that the opposite is true. People are not really afraid that the Australian public will not understand the information that is put before them. People are afraid that the Australian public will understand the information that is put before them. They will understand that the situation where one in five private companies is paying zero tax is unfair and unreasonable and sees a small group of people shirking their obligation to contribute to the services that are valued by all Australians, because that is the truth of it. When we are talking about tax, we are also talking about government services.

As my colleague Senator Lines pointed out, the social wage in this country is absolutely essential to the support of so many very low-paid workers who struggle day to day to get by buying food, buying clothing and supporting their children through education. Those families are dependent on a health system that works. In their retirement they will be dependent on an age pension, and they will be dependent from time to time, if they fall into unemployment or underemployment, on some level of government support to keep their family on their feet until such time as they can, once again, provide for themselves. Each of these measures that a civilised government provides are absolutely dependent on adequate levels of taxation. It is, to that end, most important that we are able to have a serious debate about tax in this country. But you cannot have the debate if you do not have the information.

There has also been a series of spurious arguments made about some of the personal security risks presented by the publication of tax information. We saw the embarrassing circumstance where government agencies contradicted these arguments, pointing out that the AFP had never provided any concrete examples of threats to individuals arising from their financial information being in the public domain. We also saw arguments that the disclosure of this information would harm Australian owned private companies in their market environment. Of course, what we do understand is that, in any market, competition is absolutely dependent on fair information and an even playing field. We ought to be looking to even up the playing field between publicly listed companies, whose financial reporting gives a clearer picture of the risks related to the companies, and the private companies. This lack of reporting about their tax affairs may well conceal some risks associated with those companies. We have heard about compliance costs. This cannot be a serious reason for opposing tax transparency. Compliance, of course, must also always be proportional. We must always be balanced. But if there is some public good, it is not unreasonable to ask compliance costs to be borne by these businesses.

What is astonishing then is to come into this chamber this morning and hear news that the hard-fought efforts of, the hard-fought gains won by, many in this chamber to improve levels of tax transparency—against the wishes of the government—have been undermined overnight by a deal by the Australian Greens in concert with their friends in the government. We are frequently lectured on this side of the chamber by the Australian Greens about their role in protecting progressive interests in this country. We have been told by Senator Di Natale that his goal is for the Greens to become the natural home for mainstream aggressive voters.

It is a pretty funny way to go about it, because if I were looking to displace the Australian Labor Party—which, of course, is the true home for mainstream progressive voters—I would not set about doing that by repudiating hard-fought gains in tax transparency. I would stand with the only progressive party that is capable of forming government in this country, and I would stand by the legislation that they put in place to improve the level of tax transparency in this country. What I would not do, similarly, is defend this proposed legislation. I would not come into the chamber and say, 'This half-baked deal gets us somewhere.' It really does not. There was a majority view formed in this chamber to stick with the arrangements that Labor had put in place. The unilateral decision by the Australian Greens to walk away from that view for some, as yet unexplained, benefit—which, I suspect, is not going to prove to be particularly impressive—is really inexplicable to me and I think will be a source of real disappointment for many progressive activists out there who do look to the progressive parties in this chamber to defend their interests and their beliefs.

I note that the Australian Greens are fond of putting up enthusiastic memes and enthusiastic posters like, 'We did it!' Well, what have we done today? We did it; we managed to work with the government senators to water down tax transparency provisions in this chamber. I say to all senators here: I think that this is a very great shame. It does not reflect well on the Australian Greens, but the Australian Labor Party will not walk away from our commitments on this matter.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Across Australia this morning, and I trust tomorrow morning as well, supporters of the Australian Greens will be choking on their Weet-Bix. They will be spitting out their coffee, and they will be absolutely astounded that the trust that they placed in the Australian Greens to defend their interests in this issue of tax transparency has been entirely misplaced. They have been betrayed by the Australian Greens. One must give some credit to former Senator Milne for her work in being part of the instigation of the Senate Economics Committee's inquiry into tax transparency. But that work has been betrayed by the current leadership of the Australian Greens.

We have woken up today to see that the Australian Greens have undercut the good work that Labor and the crossbenchers have been doing, working together to try to bring about a better outcome when it comes to tax transparency. What I am specifically referring to is the fact that the Greens have sided with the government in raising the threshold for the disclosure of tax. We know that, under the $100 million threshold which had been passed through this place, about 900 private firms would have been required to disclose their tax arrangements. Under this new threshold of $200 million of income, it is now likely to be fewer than 300 companies. Some estimates put it as low as 281 private Australian companies. This number could be even lower, because it is well open to billionaires to come forward, as they are prone to do, to restructure their businesses and to hive off parts of their structures so that they come below the proposed $200 million threshold.

This is the sort of activity that people in this area get up to because they are particularly keen to ensure that the light of day is not shone on their tax arrangements. There are many prominent Australians who have come out and said they want sunlight to be shone on these tax dealings. We have had Mr Dick Smith come out. He actually savaged the Prime Minister for shielding the rich from tax transparency and he accused the Prime Minister of 'ratting' on typical Australians who pay their tax if the coalition goes through with plans to shield large private companies from having to disclose how much tax they pay.

We know that trust is the important thing. A key pillar of any successful economy is trust. Market driven systems are inherently based on trust—trust by workers that they will be paid by their employers; trust by businesses that other businesses will fulfil contract obligations; trust by everyone in the banks and the financial system; and, above all, trust in the government. We are currently at a low point in public trust in our institutions. The past year of publicity on the devious ways in which multinationals avoid paying taxes in Australia, albeit through legal loopholes, has eroded public confidence in the government's commitment to ensuring that there is a level playing field when it comes to tax.

While the tax office hounds our small businesses to register for GST, submit quarterly statements and deliver chapter and verse on their financial affairs, we are aware that Australia's richest individuals employ expensive tax accountants to find the loopholes that help them to minimise their tax. Tax data from the 2012-13 financial year reveals that 40 of Australia's top income earners claimed $42½ million for their tax advisers, an average spend of over $1 million each to bring down their taxable payments. Most Australians will never see $1 million in their lifetimes. It is hard for an average Australian to understand that someone gets $1 million deducted from their taxes just to pay for their tax accountant. It is not surprising their confidence in our tax system and in our values of fairness for all is being sorely tested.

But there was bipartisan support to expose and close the rorts that global multinationals are getting away with via a myriad of complex overseas arrangements that reduce their tax exposure in Australia. Everybody agrees that multinationals need to pay their fair share of tax that relates to their activities in Australia. But what about the many Australian companies and the private holdings of our wealthy individuals? Are Australians expected simply to take the government's word that our Australian owned businesses are beyond scrutiny, that we can expect them all to do the right thing, even though we know that many of our top income earners pay no tax whatsoever? If these companies and private trusts have nothing to hide, then why are the government and its Treasurer so outraged that the wealthy should be asked to put very basic financial information on the public record? As Dick Smith has recently said, we know who most of them are. There are currently around 1,498 Australian companies that enjoy an exemption from the normal financial reporting requirements that apply to all other Australian companies with revenue over $25 million.

In light of the recent exposure of how multinationals are avoiding tax in Australia, we should return to the issue of why so many of the top Australian businesses are able to keep their tax affairs secret. There were some temporary exemptions from full financial reporting, but this is now something which we are focused on. There is a reason why we have joined in the bipartisan effort to combat multinational tax avoidance. It is that we are sick and tired of hearing all the stories of how much tax many global, iconic companies here in Australia are not paying—companies like Chevron, Glencore, Uber, Apple, Google et cetera. But are we simply to accept, without any information whatsoever, that our own wealthy Australians, whether they be companies like Myer or Linfox or simply wealthy Australian families, are paying their taxes here? Our tax transparency proposals would go a long way to redressing the suspicion that Australians hold about how fair our tax system is. Greater transparency would ensure that the public is better informed about the tax contributions that our large corporations are making, discourage aggressive tax minimisation practices that we know exist and inform our ongoing debate about the efficiency and equity of our tax system.

We are not asking for a lot of information, which makes it all the more surprising that the Treasurer is so outraged by our proposal. We believe that the government's stand here to maintain secrecy is a matter which ordinary Australians should be particularly concerned about. What are they trying to hide and why? In this era of corporate ethics and responsibility, shouldn't the wealthy bend over backwards to demonstrate how great their contribution is?

Progress reported.