In question time yesterday, Malcolm Turnbull accused Labor of “trying to whip up a class war” over their opposition to the Coalition’s plan to exempt private companies with incomes over $100 million from disclosing how much tax they pay.
Just why the government is steaming ahead with this legislation is largely unclear — there has been no public push for it — although some clues can be found in the submissions to a Senate inquiry into the matter.
Turnbull claimed yesterday the proposed change had “widespread support” — but in fact the inquiry only had a piddling nine submissions. Seven of them supported the change, but at least two of those had input from the one law firm, as Crikey has reported.
The government claims the bill is in response to concern from companies that disclosing this information might put them at a competitive disadvantage from public companies (which have to disclose the same amount of data) or could present a kidnapping risk for the families of the owners of the companies if the financial information is disclosed.
In fact, there is no evidence to suggest these risks even exist. There was only one submission to the Senate inquiry from a company — and that’s the part-US-owned meat company Teys Australia. The rest were from lawyers and lobby groups. So what is motivating this legislative change?
Australian voters are very concerned about the tax avoidance habits of big companies. Right now, the government appears keen to exacerbate this with its anti-transparency agenda on tax. We need more scrutiny, not less, of how big companies manage their tax affairs — and Turnbull is badly missing an opportunity to differentiate himself from the aversion to transparency that characterised the Abbott government.
You’re running a campaign no one is interested in Crikey because it is not an issue. It is very difficult for companies to avoid tax in Australia. We give a lot of attantion to trans nationals with their transfer pricing and something is being done about that and if these private companies are doing the same, they cn be dealt with in the same way.
After all, just because the socialist left doesn’t know the inner financial workings of a private company, the ATO still does.
“Opaquity”? “Profits:arguments to cut wages”?
I am very pleased that something is being done David,but for me as a taxpayer that is obviously not good enough.It is not at all difficult for companies to avoid tax in Australia, we have been given examples recently of companies who pay no tax.
All the taxpayer wants, without being labelled with a perjorative is transparency.
I wish that I could earn my money in Australia but pay tax in Singapore or the Cayman islands.
Unsurprisingly David Hand or is it the Victorian Liberal Party is running interference again for the case against transparency.
Actually David there is interest in the taxation arrangements of wealthy private companies, and they aren’t all kidnappers. Nor are wealthy private companies immune from acting to minimise their taxation via trusts, Off-Shore Accounts, Transfer pricing to overseas subsidiaries and so on or just down right evasion, as uncovered by Operation Wickenby.
The reason many and not just the Socialist Left are interested is to redress the unfairness of our current taxation system that ensures compliance by the average wage earner but unfairly, though legally, provides many concessions to the wealthy or fails to adequately penalise the white collar crime that is tax evasion.
This is right up there with the worst pieces of legislation ever offered before parliament.
No need, no public purpose, no public good, and only dolts like the ever-consistent fool above would support it.
Here is government today. We want to know everything about individuals, who they call where they are, what they post etc, but private companies require secrecy.
Go figure, I was under the delusion that this was a democracy.