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

Yes; damn right. If a study being associated with such groups does not afford it some intellectual scepticism in the first place, the report's methodology surely does. The authors added the average tax paid by ASX 200 companies during the last decade, compared that to pre-tax profits and determined that a tax rate of 23 per cent was paid, rather than the statutory rate of 30 per cent.

I notice that Senator Milne referred to former ATO people that go and work in private companies. Grant Wardell-Jones is at one of those big firms. He is a senior tax partner at KPMG, and he said the following in the press:

These statistical assertions are clearly misleading and are a misuse of information.

Time available does not afford an adequate opportunity to lay out the flaws in their embarrassing fullness. Suffice to say—

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Through you, Mr Deputy President, I will take that interjection from Senator Dastyari, because he obviously wants to be on the Hansard. This report uses the amount of tax a company pays as a percentage of reported profits—you might learn something here—compared with the statutory corporate tax rate of 30 per cent to calculate effective tax rates. That is reasonable. This analysis is flawed as the tax rate is not applied to accounting profit but applied to taxable income. That is another good point. There are significant differences between accounting and tax profit, such as: the treatment of capital gains and losses, recognition of foreign income, treatment of franking credits, and a tax system delivering some programs like research and development incentives and small business tax breaks. But that is all a little bit complicated for you over on the other side. That would be looking at in the way in which it actually plays out around the world. Those are international accounting policies, not political policymaking on the run. The thought bubble this morning that brought this matter of urgency to the chamber is surely that.

Companies release accounting notes to reconcile current and deferred tax and they explain significant tax issues and what may appear otherwise to be discrepancies. The report did not analyse those notes but simply applied the 30 per cent headline rate to cash profits and labelled the difference tax avoided or evaded. That is not a research document; it is a slur—a slur that the Greens eagerly associate themselves with and use as the basis of statements like that today. Any accountant worth his salt can go through any of this contribution that I have made, and they can put my argument up against your argument and see how you go. I notice that Senator Whish-Wilson is in the chamber. He comes from a finance background, and he might like to get up and confirm that what I have just said is true and accurate, rather than what is being peddled around the place. I will be interested to hear it from here.

The coalition is proud of its work in this space. We have done more work than those on the other side did in six years. Labor's record on tax during that time consisted of some matters that are a little less pride-worthy, including a $9 billion carbon tax—by the way, you have pledged to bring that back in if re-elected, haven't you? You are going to bring that back in. They brought in a mining tax that raised 2.5c per Australian in its last quarter but had billions of dollars of linked expenditure; a chaotic fringe benefits tax, and the shadow Treasurer has insinuated Labor will bring this back as well; shock changes to employee share schemes; and 90 unimplemented tax changes. (Time expired)