The story, described as an "investigation" by Guardian Australia, authored by business editor Jonathan Barrett, states that as a result, “Adani has paid zero corporate tax in Australia,” quoting experts who claim that “it won’t ever pay a cent,” though without clarifying for how long this situation might persist.
What struck me as surprising was that this major British left-of-centre publication chose to hinge its argument against one of India’s largest conglomerates primarily on an old "promise" made before operations began—that it would pay around $22 billion in taxes. Yet, as the story acknowledges, quoting tax experts, Adani may “never pay a cent.”
Interestingly, the report does not single out the Adanis as an exception. It notes—though without offering specifics—that other multinationals follow similar tax minimisation strategies. Jason Ward, principal analyst at the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, is quoted as saying this is common practice, adding that “there is no suggestion Adani has acted illegally.”
If that is indeed the case, I’m left wondering: why single out Adani? Why not also name the other multinational corporations using similar strategies? The story states that Adani’s Australian assets report regular annual losses “in large part due to large annual payments to related parties for interest and lease expenses.”
Let me cite some relevant parts from the report. It states that “Adani pledged just over a decade ago to plough $22bn in taxes and royalties into the Australian economy.” Industry groups supporting the company had also claimed that Adani’s controversial project would help fund public infrastructure like schools and hospitals “for almost a century.”
Those who supported Adani’s highly contested coal project included representative bodies such as the Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association, which said in 2017 the mine would “provide taxation and royalties that will fund schools, hospitals and other community infrastructure for almost a century.”
Similarly, the Minerals Council of Australia said in 2018 that “through mining taxes and royalties, the Carmichael mine will generate billions of dollars for taxpayers over decades to fund nurses, teachers, police, hospitals, roads and other services and infrastructure for Queensland families and communities.”
The Guardian Australia analysis finds that even Adani’s Abbot Point port—operated under a 99-year lease signed in 2011—has rarely paid tax. Over a 10-year period, it paid corporate tax on port income just once, amounting to less than $4 million.
The story also reiterates that Adani’s Carmichael mine, along with its associated rail and port operations, remains among the most politically divisive projects in Australia, drawing criticism on environmental grounds and questions about its actual economic benefit to the country.
Jason Ward comments, “My judgment on this is that this company is absolutely set up to never make taxable profit,” adding, “The related-party transactions are so big and wild and all over the map that this company will never make a profit on paper and will never pay a cent of tax.” However, he also suggests that in the future, approvals should come with conditions and “clawback mechanisms” to ensure that companies fulfill their financial promises.
According to the report, “Adani’s most recent accounts for the Carmichael coal operations, for the year ended 31 March 2025, record $1.27bn in revenue. This gets dialled down to a $461.7m loss after various expenses, resulting in no tax payable.” This data reportedly comes from the Australian Financial Review.
In response, an Adani spokesperson asserts that the company complies fully with Australia's corporate tax framework, which allows for deductions based on operating costs, interest, previous tax losses, and capital depreciation. “Corporate income tax is just one part of Australia’s complex taxation system, and it is misleading to focus solely on corporate tax paid and ignore the contribution to the Queensland and Australian economies of the millions of dollars in combined GST, payroll tax, superannuation, royalties and more we paid in FY25,” the spokesperson adds.
The spokesperson further states, “Our operations make a significant ongoing economic and social contribution to both the people who do the work and earn the money, and to the prosperity of their home towns in regional Queensland where they spend their wage.”
This leaves me wondering: is Adani’s coal mining operation—despite being controversial—being targeted primarily because it's an Indian conglomerate? What prevents a leading British publication from also naming the other multinational companies that benefit from similar tax practices? Is this a case of selective scrutiny—or a remnant of a colonial mindset?
Comments