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

On the point of order, I can understand why those opposite are a little sensitive about a Prime Minister who runs his assets through the Cayman Islands. I can understand that. I would be sensitive about it if I got tumbled. I would be very sensitive about it. I am not suggesting any illegality. So, on the point of order, I am simply pointing out an agreed fact: Mr Turnbull has his assets run through the Cayman Islands. If you want to imply that there is a problem with him doing that, I am happy to take your imputation, but I simply stated that that side of the chamber are happy to let Prime Ministers and companies run their assets through the Cayman Islands. It is a statement of fact. You are happy about it. So, on the point of order, I ask you to dismiss it as there is no point of order.

The CHAIRMAN: That is right. That probably takes us back to where we started. I was listening. I did not think that there was an adverse reflection, but I understand what you have said, Minister, and I am happy to look at the Hansard and review that position. I do remind senators that, when referring to members, they should pay the proper courtesies and respect to them.

What we are seeing is a government that is very sensitive on these tax matters. It does not want to reveal information to the Australian public to allow them to make a judgement about whether a tax package coming into the future can be fair. That is what goes to the heart of this debate: fairness and whether the Australian public have all the facts they need—whether your constituents, Senator Muir, whether your constituents, Senator Xenophon, or whether your constituents, Senator Madigan, know the truth. When they have all the facts—not hidden or disguised—they can make a judgement on whether they should pay a 15 per cent GST, because some people have tax affairs they would rather have hidden. I can understand the Prime Minister being sensitive. He runs his assets through the Cayman Islands. It is just a fact. I do not think it is appropriate and I do not think it is appropriate for super funds.

Government senators interjecting—

I am happy to take that all on as part of getting it fixed—fix that; fix this—and then the Australian public can genuinely make a judgement about whether they should pay a 15 per cent GST or a GST on food. What could be simpler than asking for information? It is just like when this parliament and this chamber bravely said, 'We don't believe the Business Council. We don't believe all those business groups who have knocked on our doors worried that their chief executives are going to have their children kidnapped.' It is just like that was not supported by any facts, including from the police or anybody else in the inquiry that went into this. Do not fall for it. The Liberal Party—it is in their DNA—want to put a GST on food and they want to try to create an argument about why Australians need that. I am up for the debate. I have been through it once before. There are not many of us. I think I am the fourth-longest-serving senator for my sins, and there are many! I am sure there is unanimous agreement on that part. I think that only Senator Heffernan's sins can exceed mine. But for my sins I have lived the GST debate before and I know all the arguments that will come forward. Let's get the truth and the facts on the table. Do not fall for the line that there is a problem with this information being disclosed. There is not. Senator Xenophon, I was hoping that you would reconsider. Senator Madigan, I know you were undecided last time, and there was confusion in the chamber. I believe that that vote should have been recommitted to allow you to express a view one way or the other. But due to the timing of that vote—when it went through—you never got a chance. If you had said 'no' back then, this amendment would not have been necessary today. If you felt that that disclosure was appropriate last time—even though we are probably still going to lose—I would urge you to follow your conscience on this.

I believe, deep down, that you believe Australians should know this—particularly if they are going to have a GST foisted on them. They should know who is paying tax and who is not paying tax. They should know who is running their assets through the Cayman Islands. They should look at the report that has come out today. I urge every crossbencher to look at this report produced by Oxfam, Tax Justice Network and those organisations who have identified companies that have $2 billion of assets running through the Cayman Islands, through the Singapore tax havens and through all the other tax havens to avoid paying tax in this country. Tragically, I studied tax economics at university.

An honourable senator interjecting—

I know; it is very sad. The fundamental principle is: you should be taxed where your economic activity takes place. That is like an economic principle: if you earn your money here, you should pay your tax here. This week, even James Packer called for companies to pay the true amount of tax. We all know what Mr Packer's dad famously said: 'You should pay as little as possible.' Today, Mr Packer thinks that Australian companies are not paying their fair share, and many of us in this chamber would agree with that.