When Joe Hockey got to his feet in Parliament on March 2 to critique Labor's $2 billion plan to reduce profit shifting by multinational companies, he had a simple and devastating message: the proposed policy would cost "jobs, jobs, jobs".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Treasurer said he was reciting the advice of his department.
"I asked the Treasury, before I came here, 'What does this mean?'" he told question time.
"And the advice of Treasury was that the proposal in relation to thin capitalisation will cost Australian jobs. That was the advice of the Treasury."
He said the opposition's plan would penalise companies that use borrowings to expand in Australia.
"That will cost jobs at Unilever. That will cost jobs at Shell. That will cost jobs at McDonald's. That will cost jobs at IBM. That will cost Australian jobs," he thundered.
But questions have been raised about exactly what advice Mr Hockey was referring to when drawing such a confident link between Labor's corporate tax policy and a threat to employment.
A question time brief prepared for the Treasurer by his department on March 2, and released under freedom of information laws, does not mention the words "jobs" or "employment" once.
The three-page document does not mention Unilever, IBM, Shell or McDonald's either.
The closest it gets to the area of jobs is a prediction that the proposed changes to thin capitalisation rules "would inevitably compromise economic activity" and that foreign multinationals could be encouraged to relocate offshore.
Correspondence attached to the brief, apparently between Treasury officials whose names have been censored, shows that someone was "Particularly keen for comments on impact on growth".
A spokeswoman for Mr Hockey insisted on Tuesday that the Treasurer was not relying on the written brief prepared for him by Treasury but rather a verbal briefing from a senior department official. Fairfax Media understands that person was deputy secretary Rob Heferen, Treasury's head of Revenue.
"The document is a question time brief, not formal advice from the Treasury," said Mr Hockey's spokeswoman. "Treasury gave unequivocal advice that Labor's proposals would cost jobs in a verbal briefing to the Treasurer."
But that explanation has raised further questions because the freedom of information application, submitted by shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh, did not just request any question time briefing documents but also asked for "file notes of any verbal briefing".
"In particular, we request a copy of any advice provided to the ministers named above on the impact of changes to thin capitalisation rules on the companies Shell, Unilever and McDonald's," it said.
In its response, Treasury said it could only identify one document – the briefing note which does not address jobs or name any of those companies.
"Joe Hockey claimed he was relying on Treasury advice in his hysterical attack on Labor's tax package," Mr Leigh said. "This document shows the Treasurer verballed his department and may have misled Parliament in the process.
"This is typical behaviour from a Treasurer who constantly overreaches because he is out of his depth running Australia's economy."
