For years, Australians have watched as multinational corporations seemingly find ways to minimise their tax contributions, often shifting profits to tax havens while ordinary citizens and small businesses dutifully pay their dues. But how do these corporations get away with it? While there are complex international tax laws at play, it's also worth looking at the political decisions made here at home. A close examination of Peter Dutton's voting record reveals a consistent pattern of opposing measures aimed at increasing transparency and preventing tax avoidance, which has some wondering whether he is inadvertently helping multinational corporations avoid their fair share of taxes in Australia.
A Consistent Opposition to Transparency
Dutton's voting record, as analysed by the "They Vote For You" website, clearly shows that he has "voted consistently against increasing transparency of big business by making information public". This isn't just about obscure technicalities; it's about whether large corporations should be open about their total income and the amount of tax they pay. By consistently opposing these measures, Dutton has made it more difficult for the public and authorities to identify multinational corporations that may be engaging in profit-shifting to reduce their tax obligations in Australia.
Consistent Opposition to Stopping Tax Avoidance
Specific Votes and the "They Vote For You" Analysis
The website "They Vote For You" tracks how politicians vote on specific policy issues. When an MP votes in agreement with a policy it is scored as 100%. When they vote against the policy it is scored as 0% and when they are absent it is scored half way between the two at 50%. They use a weighted average to arrive at an overall agreement score. The analysis reveals that Dutton has an average agreement score of just 2% for increasing transparency of big business and 0% for stopping tax avoidance. These scores place him squarely in the "voted consistently against" category for both issues.
For example, Dutton voted against the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015. He also voted against Senate amendments to various Treasury Laws Amendment Bills. These are not just minor technical votes. These votes reflect a consistent pattern of opposing measures designed to increase transparency and prevent tax avoidance.
The Broader Implications
So, what does all of this mean for Australia? By opposing measures designed to increase transparency and stop tax avoidance, Peter Dutton’s voting record may be indirectly helping multinational corporations to limit their tax payments in Australia. It's not that he is directly telling companies to avoid tax. Rather, his consistent opposition to these measures creates an environment where it is easier for these corporations to engage in practices that allow them to minimise their tax burden.
Australia's new tax transparency laws, passed in late 2024, require large multinationals to publicly disclose detailed tax information. This is a step towards addressing the problem of multinational tax avoidance, with the intention of deterring corporations from shifting profits to tax havens. The new laws will require companies to report tax data from the July 2024 financial year onwards. This information will be publicly available on data.gov.au.
While the Albanese Government successfully passed these laws, with the support of crossbench senators and the Greens, it stands in stark contrast to Peter Dutton's voting record, which suggests he is at odds with efforts to increase transparency and limit tax avoidance.
A Call for Accountability
It’s important to note that analysis of Dutton's voting record is based on the specific bills and divisions recorded by "They Vote For You". The implications are clear: Dutton's voting record consistently opposes measures that would increase corporate transparency and limit tax minimisation. This raises questions about whether his political positions inadvertently support the interests of multinational corporations that seek to minimise their tax obligations.
As the public begins to scrutinise the tax data of multinational corporations, thanks to the new laws, there may be a push to hold our politicians accountable for their voting records on these critical issues. We need politicians who are committed to ensuring that everyone pays their fair share, not those who inadvertently create an environment where multinational corporations can dodge their tax responsibilities.