|
senate vote 2018-06-25#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-23 09:49:48
|
Title
Bills — Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017; in Committee- Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>by leave—As I flagged in my second reading speech, I have two amendments to move. I move:</p><p class="italic">Amdt 8304 revised - Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9) omit "$100 million", substitute "$50 million".</p><p class="italic">Amdt 8303 - Taxation Administration Amendment (Corporate Tax Entity Information) Bill 2017</p><p class="italic">(1) Page 3 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 2—Financial reporting obligations</p><p class="italic">Part 1—Repeal of instrument</p><p class="italic"> <i>ASIC Corporations (Exempt Proprietary Companies) Instrument 2015/840</i></p><p class="italic">1 The whole of the instrument</p><p class="italic">Repeal the instrument.</p><p class="italic">Part 2—Grandfathered exemption</p><p class="italic"><i>Corporations Act 2001</i></p><p class="italic">2 Subsection 1408(6) (table item 7)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table item.</p><p class="italic">Part 3—Application</p><p class="italic">3 Application</p><p class="italic">(1) This item applies to a company if, immediately before the commencement of this item, the company was exempted from complying with subsection 319(1) of the <i>Corporations Act 2001</i> by the <i>ASIC Corporations (Exempt Proprietary Companies</i>) <i>Instrument 2015/840</i>.</p><p class="italic">(2) Despite the amendments made by Parts 1 and 2, that exemption continues to apply to the company in relation to the 2017-18 financial year.</p><p>I've already outlined briefly what they are, but I'll do so again. The first amendment on sheet 8304 revised substitutes $50 million for $100 million. This is the threshold at which we want to see disclosure from both private and public companies. Very briefly, the private senator's bill from Labor is to reduce the current disclosure levels from $200 million to $100 million. We'd like to see that go a step further by reducing it to $50 million.</p><p>Can I just say to the coalition senators who got up in this chamber today and said that there's no reason we should be disclosing the tax affairs of some of the most wealthy individuals in this country and some of the biggest private and public companies in this country: in 2015, you supported a Greens amendment to introduce tax transparency into law in this Senate, which passed into law. They supported disclosure of over 218 companies with thresholds the size of $200 million, so why can't they support $100 million or $50 million?</p><p>They've said in here today that they won't support this on a fundamental principle, yet they did support this fundamental principle. Let's be very clear about this. They can't come in here and use all these excuses. Senator Hume said, 'It's red tape.' I've already explained that it's not red tape for business. They already have reporting requirements to the ATO privately. There's no red tape involved in having a set of accounts being made publicly available for companies earning over $100 million or $50 million. There's no red tape involved at all. What a totally spurious argument.</p><p>Then they tried the old kidnapping clause, that somehow if individuals and companies make their information available then that commercial-in-confidence information, that sensitive information, is somehow going to put them at risk. We thoroughly debunked that in this place. There was no evidence to support that at all. I will have more to say in a minute around getting rid of the grandfathering clause.</p><p>They also said that somehow the disclosure of this information is going to be misinterpreted by people, because the fact a company pays no tax is not necessarily illegal. That's not an argument I'm going to have with them. I don't see an issue at all with that. If a company pays no tax and there are legitimate reasons for it, then fine. This is about disclosure. Anyone who understands tax—and the kinds of people who will access these accounts do understand what they're looking at—will be able to see this company's had deductions for depreciation, amortisation, capital investment and all the other stuff that we could talk for hours on. That's not the issue here, and it's not an argument to vote against tax transparency. This is simply to provide a set of accounts that can be publicly accessed by all stakeholders so that we can actually see not only companies doing the right thing, but also that our regulators are doing their job to make sure that companies pay their fair share of tax.</p><p>This is a public good piece of legislation for everyone. Let's be really clear about that. It's not going to add to red tape. It's not going to put at risk individuals in these companies, because somehow they're disclosing their private affairs. The government's already supported tax transparency for companies over $200 million. They can't provide any decent reasons why they won't support the $100 million threshold or the Greens' $50 million threshold. It's the same fundamental principle, so let's not hear any more about that.</p><p>In relation to the grandfathering clause, which the Greens have introduced in an amendment to on sheet 8303—financial reporting obligations are under schedule 2, and the grandfathering exemption is part 2 of that sheet under the Corporations Act 2001. As I said, this is an archaic throwback to Mr Paul Keating's government in 1995, that basically cut a deal to allow 1,500 high net worth individuals to not provide their annual statements to ASIC. There can be no reason for this if we're having a debate around tax transparency. The Greens support removing it. I understand that Labor will too, and I certainly hope the crossbench come on board with this. The same spurious arguments being made by the Liberal Party about lack of disclosure will not hold. This is something that I think all Australians want to see. I commend both these amendments to the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Just for the record, I indicate that Labor will be supporting the Greens' amendment on sheet 8303 and the next amendment that is up, on sheet 8304.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I want to ask the proponents of the amendments about reducing thresholds for private Australian companies to $50 million. How many additional companies will that involve? What sort of information is hoped will be gained in the difference between $50 million and $100 million—or $200 million even? Could you elaborate on that? I think your amendments indicate that the threshold for others wouldn't change, but I am interested in what additional information you might be able to achieve by going to $50 million.</p><p>I appreciate that this would apply in the case of the thresholds set by the government, but in my speech—I'm not sure if you were here or listened—I mentioned that at a Senate inquiry in, I think, 2015, there was some information given about the reasons that some companies didn't show a taxable income. Broadly speaking, they were reinvesting the money in promoting their business and therefore they had no taxable income for that year. On the difference between $50 million and $100 million, I am wondering if the fact that there is reinvestment of some of the profits in that category—in that quantum between $50 million and $100 million—is taken into account or whether that will impact at all on what you hope to achieve from reducing the threshold to $50 million?</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>We don't know. We estimate that it will be between 2,000 and 3,000 companies. That's what disclosure is all about—actually finding out these things.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>So 2,000 or 3,000 companies out of a total of many thousands of companies in Australia. It does impose an additional burden on them. Is the information that's going to be obtained going to be commensurate with the additional cost of providing that information, particularly when you don't really know what the answer to the question is? I think you said it might be 1,000 or that it might be more or it might be less. I am just wondering what the purpose of all this is if we don't quite know what it's going to achieve?</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>The question is that the amendments on sheet 8304—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Temporary Chair, it appears that I am not going to get an answer to that. With respect to the mover of the amendments, that suggests that perhaps the only reason that these amendments are being moved is that they are different to the Labor Party's amendments, which are amendments that the government clearly wouldn't support. If there isn't a reason for these amendments, one would wonder why the Greens political party are pursuing the issue.</p><p>I would have thought that the Greens political party might have been focusing their attention on understanding just how important it is that we have a competitive tax system for all corporations, including foreign corporations who want to invest in Australia. That investment in Australia, obviously, creates jobs—principally for Australians. As I've often said in this chamber, I'm not very bright. If a company has an opportunity to invest in Australia and make a certain amount of profit and then pay 30 per cent tax or to invest anywhere else—America France, Singapore—and make the same profit but then only pay half the tax, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar in economics to work out where they're going to go. Many of these other places have a competitive advantage with labour costs and regulatory costs. The several advantages we have are dissipated if the tax rate we charge on profits is so much more. That's what I would hope the Greens may be concentrating on rather than lowering the thresholds in this amendment below those in the Labor Party's amendment for reasons which, as I say, don't seem to be apparent and which, unfortunately, the promoter can't change. So I again ask the same questions of the mover of the amendment—that is, the Greens political party. While I'm on my feet, I would also ask Senator Cameron: is the opposition being consistent? I know this was at one stage $100 million. It was changed back and then this is a change back again. Is there consistency in your proposed amendment to this bill?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-06-25.17.1):
- > *That [the question](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2018-06-25/2) be put.*
- In other words, they voted to end the debate and instead vote on the question under discussion straight away. These are known as closure motions.
-
-
|