|
representatives vote 2015-11-12#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-12-24 12:50:19
|
Title
Bills — Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015; Consideration of Senate Message- Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 - Consideration of Senate Message - Disagree with the Senate's amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the amendments be disagreed to.</p>- The majority [disagreed with the Senate's amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2015-11-12.19.1) to the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5549), and so they were rejected from the House of Representatives.
- This means that the bill will return to the Senate, where the senators will decide whether or not they are going to insist on their amendments or whether they'll accept the will of the House.
- You can explore the amendments as they are listed on the [Hansard](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe1a2d5a5-26ab-4d1a-b41c-6f8d732b1ba8%2F0059;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe1a2d5a5-26ab-4d1a-b41c-6f8d732b1ba8%2F0000%22) or on the [bill's homepage](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5549).
- ### What does the bill do?
- The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5549) strengthens the laws against [tax avoidance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance) for certain companies. For example, it introduces anti-avoidance measures to deal with multinational companies with an annual global income of more than $A1 billion that use schemes to avoid having to pay tax in Australia or at least reduce that tax to a minimum.
- To learn more about the bill, see the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1516a/16bd045).
<p>The government is acting to ensure multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax in Australia, where they earn that income, and we have put forward well-considered legislation that achieves this objective.</p><p>The opposition say that they like to support these goals, but yet when called upon to support this well-considered legislation, which is needed to ensure that multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax, the opposition chose to play politics and block this critical piece of the government's tax integrity plan last night with the amendments that have now come before the House. Not once between the former Treasurer introducing the Tax Law Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015, on 16 September 2015, and the Senate's decision yesterday did the opposition or crossbench raise with me as Treasurer—or with the former Treasurer—that they had any concern with this piece of legislation. Not once did Labor or the crossbench ask to meet with me to discuss this legislation.</p><p>Instead, after years of work—by the OECD; the Treasury; the Australian Taxation Office; the government— and after hundreds of meetings and discussions—consultation with stakeholders and experts considering all the requirements, consequences and implementation issues; a committee report from the Senate which included Senators Xenophon and Labor Senator Dastyari and which recommended the bill be passed, with no dissenting report—the Senate, on the run and at the last minute, has sought to dramatically amend this bill and to include a raft of peripheral additions. This is a very shabby and irresponsible way to deal with such a serious issue. This is a very shabby process that cannot be supported and should not be encouraged.</p><p>The opposition have failed to act in good faith and failed to be part of a sensible discussion and process on this issue. They have chosen cheap, opportunistic politics over good policy process. This is the type of cynical, old politics that Australians are sick of. It is very disappointing. The government are setting a new tone in politics in this country. The opposition remain locked in the old politics of the past. The opposition are following a very similar path, as we know, when it comes to issues of changing the tax system. So haphazard was the way the proposed amendments came about that there were no less than six proposed amendments circulated.</p><p>This is not how you make policy; it is policy on the run. The government will not accept a cobbled together, last minute, back of the envelope amendment which seeks to re-write our tax integrity measure that has been drafted to be consistent with the G20 OECD BEPS program as part of a two-year process. What is more concerning is that the amendment which the Senate is asking this House to consider repeals another law, the better targeting income tax transparency measure, which the Senate passed a mere three weeks ago.</p><p>Suddenly, a number of senators admitted yesterday that they did not understand the bill when they voted on it—that is their right—and got it wrong and they wanted to vote it out. This type of flip-flopping may be acceptable to the authors and supporters of these amendments, but it is not how the Turnbull government does business and sets policy. The government will not support law made on a whim. These admissions by certain senators that they got it wrong a few weeks ago provide me with no confidence that these same senators are now able to make a clear decision on this incredibly important area of law.</p><p>But I finish on this point, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Goodenough: the government will take the time to carefully consider the issues raised in these amendments, who might be affected, the potential unintended consequences and whether there is any real substance to what is being proposed by the Senate. I will consult with the Commissioner of Taxation next week and discuss with him these new obligations to be imposed, as proposed, on businesses and how they might in anyway assist to improve our taxation system, because, at the end of the day, that is what the government are interested in. I will consult with senators who are prepared to engage in good faith on this issue, and I am disappointed they failed to do this so far up until this point.</p><p>This government are interested in getting the policy right, not playing politics like the opposition have done. The government are not rejecting the consideration of the issues raised in these amendments, rather the appalling process that has produced these amendments, which give me no confidence as to their veracity and merit at this point. And that is why the government will not accept these proposed amendments and the appalling manner in which they have been put forward. What we are interested in doing is considering the issues raised, but we will not endorse this shabby process sponsored by the opposition.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>Of course the opposition will resist this move by the Treasurer. The Treasurer says we have seen a shabby process. That shabby process is called parliamentary debate and a vote of a chamber of parliament, the other place, and it is a vote the government lost. It happens from time to time. From time to time, governments lose votes. I know it does not happen in this place very often but it does happen in the other place, and the Treasurer has to get used to it. He lost a vote, get over it. Get over it. He lost the support of the crossbench. It happens. It is not a shabby process. It is called democracy. It happened to us from time to time when we were in government. We had to deal with it. It is called losing a vote. I know the Treasurer is used to getting his own way in this House, I understand that, but in the other house you actually have to talk to people.</p><p>In the Senate, senators expressed a view which was in accord with that of the opposition, a consistent view that the opposition have had. The Treasurer says he is surprised at the Labor Party's point of view and he says we should have told him that we support tax transparency. Well, the Labor Party have been arguing that for months. And, yes, the Treasurer is right about one thing: he says the Labor Party lost a vote in the Senate a couple of weeks ago about tax transparency. Yes, that is correct. We understand that; we lost the vote. And last night, we won a vote on the same issue because the crossbench were persuaded by our arguments. What happened was—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Morrison</p><p>So how will it go here?</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>Well, I think I can predict how it will go here. Yes, we can predict that. You are going to create a dispute between the houses. That is your call. You could just accept the loss. But, no, you do not want to do that. What you are going to do is create a dispute between the houses. That is a matter for you. That is not my call; that is your call. That is the Treasurer's call.</p><p>What has happened is that the senators have looked at this matter and at the way they voted last fortnight and they have said, 'Hang on a second, there's a problem.' The problem is that there was a Senate inquiry with an organisation giving evidence before it and it turns out that that organisation is not entirely genuine. It has no members. It is called the Family Office Institute. The Family Office Institute argued to those senators that they were a grassroots organisation and that the legislation would cause them grave concern if tax details were to be made public.</p><p>It turns out that the Family Office Institute have no members and are what is called an astroturfed organisation. If the Treasurer wants to talk about shabby processes, let's talk about that. If he wants to talk about shabby processes, we can talk about shabby processes. The Senate was less than impressed with that shabby process, and the Senate voted last night. But this so-called shabby process that the Treasurer is concerned about, which is called the Senate voting, was brought about when the senators looked at this and said, 'Hang on a second, we're not very impressed by this tactic that has been employed by supporters of the government's legislation,' and they decided to reinsert tax transparency. But they did so with a caveat and it is a caveat the opposition are more than happy with.</p><p>It is a caveat whereby somebody can apply to the tax commissioner not to have their information disclosed if it is a significant and legitimate concern. That is a fair check and balance, in our view. It was not our suggestion but we are happy to work with that. We are happy to accept that in the interests of good faith. So the vote passed the Senate. The Treasurer says that the Labor Party are blocking this. In fact, the legislation passed the Senate, I am advised, unanimously. That is not how you block legislation—by voting for it. That is not how it works. I know the Treasurer has a problem with parliamentary processes. I know he thinks they are shabby. But when you are actually happy with a piece of legislation, you vote for it. Occasionally, the government is going to lose, but the government actually won last night on the legislation because it passed. That is not called blocking. The Labor Party voted for it. That is not blocking legislation.</p><p>I know it is a complex scenario, but the Labor Party supported the legislation. That is not how you block it; it does not work that way. I know the Treasurer is new to the job and still working out how to get legislation through. Last night, Treasurer, you took a win. Know when to accept a win. You got your legislation through; that is called 'winning'. We are happy to support it, and we voted for it. We just had a suggestion—a friendly suggestion—which the Senate agreed with and adopted. It improved the legislation before the House and it improved the legislation before the Senate. The Treasurer is quite right: the Senate recognised that, in our view, they got it wrong a couple of weeks ago. They came to that view and it was negotiated through the Senate last night. That is what happened. The legislation has passed. The Treasurer should just accept the fact that he won the day and got his legislation through, and he should move on.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|