Australia can and should learn from this example. The worst practitioners of profit shifting and tax minimisation should be named and shamed. We know about the practices of tech giants such as of tax minimisation, they are just the tip of the iceberg. The Australian Tax Office should be playing a public role in exposing poor behaviour across the board. ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan confirmed that his managers were expected to look at options for outsourcing wherever possible. Credit:Bradley Kanaris The Tax Commissioner, Chris Jordan, has been championing a new approach to enforcement. He has instigated an aggressive stance, put together specialist teams targeting Australia's largest firms and is legally challenging what he has deemed "artificial and contrived" tax structures. All of this while suffering 4700 job cuts across the Tax Office. But this new-found activism from the ATO is undermined by its are engaging in aggressive tax minimisation. On Wednesday, the ATO will be coming before the Australian Senate as part of our The ATO has revealed that more than better a year. That would go a long way, for instance, to funding the proposed Gonski reforms to education that have already been slashed.

But while the ATO is prepared to reveal the amount, it will not The ATO often cites privacy concerns when refusing to name companies. That's just rubbish. At Wednesday's The ATO has the opportunity to come clean on how these businesses have been duping Australian taxpayers. Recent polling shows of Australian families want to see more action on tax-minimisation practices. The complexity of tax law creates a huge grey area where companies are able to engage in behaviour that is technically legal, but morally unethical. To address the scourge of aggressive tax minimisation, a three-pronged approach is needed. Firstly, the government should be continuing to engage in international efforts to address cross-border challenges. Efforts by the G20, OECD and international bodies are an important part of any attempt to crack down on aggressive tax minimisation. The companies practising this type of behaviour operate internationally and our laws need to as well. Treasurer Joe Hockey was right when he said at the G20 that international co-operation was vital for success. Nonetheless, this will be slow and stilted. Don't hold your breath waiting for the world to agree on anything, let alone tax law.

When their tax practices were publicly exposed and discredited, Starbucks faced a consumer revolt. Secondly, we also need to tighten our domestic laws. There is unilateral action the Australian government can and should take. Labor leader Bill Shorten has already outlined proposals that could raise close to $2 billion over the next four years. Commonsense measures such as tackling debt shifting, closing loopholes and properly resourcing the ATO could be introduced into the Parliament immediately and would pass through the Senate without opposition. Finally, we need to empower consumers. That is where the ATO has an important role to play in coming forward with more information. The ATO should be on the side of the consumer and the public good, not running a protection racket for aggressive tax-minimisation schemes. Information should be presented to Australian taxpayers on the worst offenders. If companies are prepared to engage in aggressive tax minimisation, they should be prepared to face the public consequences once consumers are informed.

So, my public call to the Tax Commissioner is this: when you testify on Wednesday, come forward and give the Australian taxpayers the information they want and deserve. Who knows, perhaps with a little public exposure, a few Australian companies will take Starbucks' lead and pay more of the tax Australia so desperately needs. Senator Sam Dastyari is chairing the Senate Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance that begins hearings in Sydney on Wednesday.