data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c50fd/c50fd859bbc8263588d249b2e243f3c16ce757b1" alt=""
The list of “protected” companies that are not required to file full financial statements courtesy of a Keating-era exemption — which the government has been fighting tooth-and-nail to protect — contains an extensive array of large Liberal Party donors.
The exemptions were introduced in 1995 when corporations law was consolidated and imposed new reporting requirements on large private firms, which were “grandfathered” to be exempt from the new requirements, leaving a list of companies that did not have to lodge full financial statements with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Fairfax’s Ben Butler has an excellent backgrounder here).
But in 2013, Labor introduced a requirement, taking effect from December this year, that all firms worth more than $100 million would have their revenue, taxable revenue and the amount of tax they have paid published by the Australian Tax Office (to which, of course, all firms must make full financial disclosures). The grandfathering exemption — ASIC and Treasury both oppose — would remain in place but, in the case of large private firms over $100 million, be partially circumvented.
This is the requirement the government has sought to defeat by arguing, absurdly and without evidence, that it would expose Australia’s richest families to the threat of kidnapping and was an invasion of privacy. A recent Senate attempt to reinsert the requirement in the government’s multinational tax bill led a furious Scott Morrison to denounce the Senate and reject the bill.
Why has the government been so determined to protect a handful of large companies from basic transparency?
Yesterday, the list of companies subject to the exemption became public, and a notable entry is “Turnbull and Partners”. The Prime Minister’s Office has said he will write to ASIC to ask that it be removed from the list.
But an examination of the list shows that some of the country’s most politically powerful and wealthiest families — and the Liberal Party’s biggest donors — are benefiting from the disclosure exemption. The companies of Dick Honan, whose Manildra has contributed over $420,000 to the Liberal and National parties over the last decade, are exempted. Michael Crouch’s Zip companies are exempted: those companies have contributed over $170,000 since 2005-06 to the Liberal Party, and Crouch himself has given nearly $50,000 in recent years. The late Paul Ramsay’s healthcare companies are on the list as well as his holding company; the latter gave $600,000 to the Liberals in the year before his death in 2014, as well as $25,000 to the Nationals.
The healthcare company of the late Doug Moran — the enormously influential NSW Liberal donor and nursing home operator who fell out with the Howard-era Liberals over aged care policy — is also on the list. The late Richard Pratt’s companies are on there, including Visy, which engaged in price-fixing; Pratt gave a monster $200,000 donation to the Liberals in 2006, which John Howard said would not be returned after revelations of Visy’s price-fixing. Other powerful business names dot the list: Kerry Stokes’ Australian Capital Equity is there, as are companies controlled by the Grollo family (Grocon), Lindsay Fox (Linfox), and Transfield and Tenix.
In this mix, Turnbull is a fairly junior inclusion: the most important names belong to Australia’s most powerful and wealthiest families, whom one alienates at one’s peril — especially if they’re a generous donor.
The bringing into existence of this requirement, and its subsequent withdrawal, has caused considerable debate within the wider taxpaying community.
Those for the disclosure have argued that using the law to force disclosure of the amount of tax paid shines a light on the failure of entities above a certain threshold to pay their fair share of taxation.
Those against disclosure argue that this does not change the amount of tax entities must pay under the law, and that disclosure does not solve the central issue: how people deal with the challenges of transfer pricing and revenue leakage between tax regimes.
Why our PM has taken steps to remove his private company off the list of entities that are not required to report tax affairs is not entirely clear, although commentators are quick to refer to the politically problematic public perception regarding tax transparency, especially at a time when there is renewed debate over the issue in Canberra.
An alternative approach could diffuse arguments from both camps of this one small area of the tax transparency debate. Namely, to require that entities that turnover more than $100 million (or perhaps any other appropriate threshold, which would need to be adjusted periodically) be legally unable to remain private companies. They would therefore come under the reporting regime of other entities as appropriate to their structures.
This whole affair stinks to high heaven, and needs to be resolved.
Our pollies sell out pretty cheaply .. the amounts quoted would be chump change to the “donors”..gaming the system at bargain basement rates.. meanwhile 80 million was expended looking at a few low level rorters over at the TURC..
What a muddled and confused article. It starts by discussing an exemption for certain private companies providing full financial data to ASIC. That’s ASIC, not the ATO.
So they are not exempt from provide data to the ATO. So the ATO can monitor their income, transfer pricing if there is any, company tax etc. Labor legislated to have the ATO publish this data. That’s the ATO, not ASIC.
And of course, to this lefty crusading publication, it is all about the Coalition government protection of its donors from scrutiny, even though this crusading publication can then publish in detail, donations made by said obscure murky companies to the Liberal Party.
The risk to the personal safety of families of these private companies may be overblown but one major benefit of keeping these financial details away from public disclosure is that I would not have to endure a relentless diet of spiteful, envious, negative, articles in this crusading publication about people who actually make a positive contribution to Australia’s economy.
“The Age of Entitlement is dead. Long live the Age of Entitlement!”