This amendment is modest, practical and reasonable. The bill removes supporting R&D activities from the R&D tax incentive. R&D activities are the supporting work that makes medical research, engineering and innovation possible. Since the exposure draft of this legislation was released, it's now been garnished with a new power allowing a minister to determine by legislative instrument which kinds of activities are integral to R&D under the R&D tax incentive. This legislative instrument is presumably the government's answer to the concerns raised in consultation regarding the removal of supporting R&D activities. The minister's determination will determine which activities stay inside the incentive and which fall out. It will shape how much support Australian businesses can receive for their research and development.

But under the bill, as it is currently drafted, before making that determination the Treasurer need consult only one person: the industry minister. The minister is not obliged to consult Industry Innovation and Science Australia, the expert board that this parliament established to actually decide what is and isn't research and development. The minister is not required to consult the tax office, which administers the offset and will have to apply whatever the minister determines. The businesses, the scientists, the medical researchers, the academics and the engineers who understand better than anyone in this place what research and development needs will not be consulted on those activities which are integral to their activities. A decision made that way risks picking winners and losers. The industries with the best access to ministers' offices may well see their sorts of activities recognised, but the small manufacturer in a regional town, the startup without a lobbyist and the researcher perhaps working in a hospital or in a university department who doesn't happen to know anyone in Canberra won't be represented, and they won't have a voice. I'm very concerned that this process will just invite lobbying and the corrosion of a process which should be independently adjudicated to reward excellence, not influence.

My amendment will ensure that the definition of R&D activities will be subjected to due process. Before making a determination, the minister should have to consult widely—with the minister for industry, as the bill already provides; with Industry Innovation and Science Australia; with the Commissioner of Taxation; and with any bodies representing relative and relevant industries, along with any other industries and entities that the minister considers likely to be affected. The amendment also requires the minister to publish draft determinations on the department's website and allow for at least 28 days in response in written submissions. My amendment does not stop the government from making determinations, and it doesn't change what the government can put in those determinations. It simply means that those people with the expertise and the knowledge relevant to those decisions are heard before the decision is made, not after.

The government has said that it intends to consult on this instrument. The amendment also ensures that this government and future governments hold fast to that commitment. The R&D tax incentive changes won't apply until 1 July 2028. A 28-day consultation period will not delay this legislation, but it will give businesses planning multi-year R&D programs some certainty about how the rules will be set. The government's own Ambitious Australia review called for the R&D incentive to be rendered simpler and more predictable for those companies who claim it and who rely upon it. Ministerial discretion exercised without consultation could be capricious, and it could be compromised. Confidence in government decision-making is built on transparency and consultation, and so I commend this amendment to the House.