In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the House will now consider the bill, as a whole, in detail. The question therefore is that the bill agreed to, and the question now is that the amendments circulated by the member for New England be agreed to

Member for New England's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 83 (after line 28), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 6 — Super Pay Boost

Part 1 — Main amendments

Taxation Administration Act 1953

1 After Division 131 in Schedule 1

Insert:

Division 132 — Super Pay Boost

132-1 Making and changing a Super Pay Boost election

(1) An individual may make a Super Pay Boost election by giving an election in the approved form to a participating provider.

(2) The election is valid if:

(a) the individual is housing eligible; and

(b) the individual has had fewer than 36 participation months; and

(c) the individual does not already have a Super Pay Boost election in force; and

(d) the election includes:

(i) a declaration that the individual is housing eligible; and

(ii) details of an account with an ADI, held by the individual alone or jointly, to which payments are to be made; and

(iii) any evidence required by the Super Pay Boost rules.

(3) A valid election takes effect by force of this section. Neither the provider nor the Commissioner has a discretion to accept or approve it. A participating provider must not refuse to receive or give effect to it.

(4) The election is in force when it is given and becomes active on the first day of the next calendar month, or a later calendar month specified in the election. The individual may suspend, resume or cancel the election, or vary the nominated account, by giving notice in the approved form to a participating provider. The rules may prescribe when a notice takes effect.

(5) If the individual ceases to be housing eligible, the election is suspended and the individual must notify a participating provider within 14 days. It may resume only after the individual becomes housing eligible again and gives a resumption notice.

(6) The election ceases to be in force at the earliest of:

(a) a cancellation taking effect; or

(b) the end of the individual's 36th participation month; or

(c) the death of the individual.

(7) A suspension, or a change of employment or participating provider, does not reset the number of participation months.

132-5 Housing eligibility

(1) An individual is housing eligible at a time if:

(a) the individual is an Australian resident; and

(b) the individual occupies a dwelling in Australia as the individual's principal place of residence; and

(c) any of the following applies:

(i) the individual is liable, alone or jointly, to pay rent for the dwelling under a genuine residential tenancy or occupancy agreement; or

(ii) the individual is liable, alone or jointly, to pay principal or interest under a loan secured by a mortgage over the dwelling or the land on which it is situated; or

(iii) the individual's spouse meets subparagraph (i) or (ii), both ordinarily live in the dwelling and the individual regularly contributes to the rent or loan payments.

(2) For subparagraph (1)(c)(iii), it does not matter whether the individual is named in the agreement, loan, mortgage or title.

132-10 Register and notices

(1) A participating provider that receives an election or notice under section 132-1 must give it electronically to the Commissioner by the end of the next business day.

(2) The Commissioner must maintain an authoritative electronic Super Pay Boost register recording each election, its status, its participation months and the nominated account.

(3) The Commissioner must record an election as soon as practicable after automatic identity, duplicate-election and 36-month checks. Recording the election is not an approval or determination.

(4) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable, give an authenticated electronic notice of the election and each change to every participating provider that the Commissioner has reason to believe holds a superannuation interest for the individual. This also applies if the provider is identified after the election ceases to be in force.

(5) The election applies to the provider that received it from the day it becomes active, and to another provider when the Commissioner makes the notice available. It also applies to qualifying employer contributions already held by that provider.

(6) If an employer contribution is not otherwise identified to a participating provider as attributable to an employer's superannuation guarantee obligation, the Commissioner must, by automated electronic notice, identify so much of the contribution and the relevant pay period as existing information allows.

(7) The Commissioner may correct the register to give effect to this Division and must notify the individual and affected providers. An individual dissatisfied with a correction may object under Part IVC.

(8) If a participating provider acts reasonably in reliance on an election it received, the latest authenticated notice made available by the Commissioner, or information used to identify a qualifying employer contribution:

(a) the provider is not liable for a failure caused solely by that material being incorrect or out of date; and

(b) a payment is taken, for the purposes of this Division and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and regulations under that Act, to have been required by section 132-15 to the extent that it does not exceed the amount that would have been required if that material had been correct.

(9) The Commissioner and a participating provider may collect, record, use and disclose the individual's tax file number to the extent reasonably necessary to administer this Division.

132-15 Payment by participating provider

(1) For each payment month in which a participating provider has one or more qualifying employer contributions for an individual to whom a Super Pay Boost election has applied, the provider must pay the individual the monthly Super Pay Boost amount.

(2) The provider must make the payment as soon as practicable and no later than 10 business days after the end of the payment month. An amount remains payable if the election is later suspended or ceases to be in force, unless the individual dies before payment. The rules may prescribe circumstances in which the time limit does not run because payment is legally or practically prevented.

(3) The payment month for a qualifying employer contribution is the latest of the calendar months in which:

(a) the contribution is received; and

(b) the contribution is allocated; and

(c) the election first applies to the provider; and

(d) the contribution is identified as a qualifying employer contribution.

(4) The monthly Super Pay Boost amount is 85% of one-quarter of the total qualifying employer contributions for which that calendar month is the payment month, rounded once to the nearest cent.

(5) The provider must pay the amount to the nominated account without requiring any further application or approval from the individual, the Commissioner or any other person.

(6) Before making the payment, the provider must allocate the full qualifying employer contribution to the individual's superannuation interest. The payment is attributable only to the corresponding qualifying employer contributions and must not reduce any other benefit of the individual.

(7) An amount not paid by the time required by this section is a debt due by the provider to the individual. The provider must not charge the individual a fee for an election, notice or payment. A fee charged in contravention of this subsection is a debt due by the provider to the individual.

(8) An overpayment may be set off only against a later Super Pay Boost payment and must not be debited against another benefit. If it resulted from a materially false or misleading statement that the individual knew, or was reckless as to whether, was false or misleading, it is a debt due by the individual to the provider.

132-20 Effect on contributions, employers and funds

(1) A Super Pay Boost payment does not reduce or alter the amount or character of the corresponding qualifying employer contribution, affect whether or when the contribution was made, received or allocated, or constitute a refund, return, reversal or reduction of the contribution.

(2) The full qualifying employer contribution remains included in the assessable income of the fund and the individual's concessional contributions. An election or payment does not reduce, vary or discharge an employer's obligation or liability under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, an industrial instrument, a contract of employment or any other law.

(3) Nothing in this Division requires an employer to be notified of an election, calculate or pay a Super Pay Boost amount, split a contribution, change payroll or provide information additional to information otherwise required under a law of the Commonwealth.

(4) Section 307-125 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 does not apply to a Super Pay Boost payment. The payment is taken to consist wholly of the element taxed in the fund of the taxable component of the superannuation interest from which it is paid.

(5) A provision of the governing rules of a fund has no effect to the extent that it would prevent compliance with this Division. The trustee has all powers necessary to comply. A payment made in compliance with this Division does not contravene section 62 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 or constitute a breach of trust or of a covenant, duty or obligation.

132-25 Super Pay Boost rules

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules (the Super Pay Boost rules) prescribing matters required or permitted by this Division to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient for carrying out or giving effect to this Division.

(2) The rules may deal with evidence and verification; the register, notices, reporting and records; identifying qualifying employer contributions from existing information and data standards; payment cut-offs, outages, failed payments, corrections, reversals, recovery and set-off; and rollovers, transfers and death.

(3) The rules must not change the amount in subsection 132-15(4), extend the limit of 36 participation months, alter housing eligibility, make an election or payment subject to discretionary approval, impose an obligation on an employer or permit another superannuation benefit to be debited for an overpayment.

132-30 Definitions

In this Division:

participating provider, in relation to an individual, means a superannuation provider that is the trustee of a complying superannuation fund that is a regulated superannuation fund within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and holds a superannuation interest for the individual that is not a defined benefit interest.

participation month means a calendar month during which a Super Pay Boost election is active for the individual for at least one day. A calendar month is counted only once.

qualifying employer contribution, for an individual, means so much of a contribution made by an employer for the individual as:

(a) is identified to the participating provider, from information given under a superannuation data and payment standard, a notice under subsection 132-10(6), or records prescribed by the Super Pay Boost rules, as attributable to the employer's superannuation guarantee obligation; and

(b) is received by the provider and allocated to a superannuation interest for the individual that is not a defined benefit interest; and

(c) relates to a pay period ending on a day on which the individual's election was active; and

(d) has not been reversed before being included in a payment.

Super Pay Boost election means an election under section 132-1.

Super Pay Boost payment means a payment required by section 132-15.

132-35 Compensation for acquisition of property

(1) If the operation of this Division would result in an acquisition of property, within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, from an entity otherwise than on just terms, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the entity.

(2) If the Commonwealth and the entity do not agree on the amount, the entity may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, for the recovery of such reasonable amount as the court determines.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

2 At the end of the table in Subdivision 303-B

Insert:

303-25 Super Pay Boost payments

3 At the end of Subdivision 303-B

Add:

303-25 Super Pay Boost payments

(1) A superannuation member benefit that is a superannuation lump sum is not assessable income and is not exempt income to the extent that it is paid under section 132-15 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

(2) Despite sections 304-5 and 304-10, subsection (1) also applies to a payment covered by subsection 132-10(8) in that Schedule if the individual acted in good faith, but only to the extent that the payment does not exceed the amount that would have been required if the material relied on had been correct.

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994

4 Paragraph 6.01B(3)(b)

After "107A", insert ", 107B".

5 After regulation 6.17D

Insert:

6.17E Super Pay Boost payments

(1) For the purposes of subsection 31(1) of the Act, the standard set out in subregulation (2) is applicable to the operation of regulated superannuation funds.

(2) The trustee of a regulated superannuation fund must comply with Division 132 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 so far as that Division applies to the trustee.

Note: See item 107B of Schedule 1.

6 After item 107A in Schedule 1 (table)

Insert:

Part 2 — Application provision

7 Application

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) Super Pay Boost elections made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and

(b) qualifying employer contributions for pay periods ending on or after that commencement.

I just want to run you through some certain issues. This is obviously about getting access to some of your super, and it's not all your super. It's a portion of your super for a portion of time, because we firmly believe in One Nation that your super is not a national asset, it's your asset. One of the classic examples of where we've seen the government bereft of control over people's private assets would be in the Shield and First Guardian issue. I bring this up as an example because quite often I see the Assistant Treasurer going to the dispatch box talking about the sanctity of super, and what they've missed is that $1.2 billion was stolen from super. People were left with no money.

I want to give you an example of one. There's a company called Sequoia. It owns InterPrac, which is a licensed adviser for First Guardian and Shield. Now, here's an example of what has happened under this government's watch. There's a gentleman, Mr Richard Orr. He's 53 years old. He's terminally ill with cancer. He most likely won't make it till February. Instead of accessing his super to make his final memories with his wife and children, he is forced to battle Sequoia and InterPrac to have any of his super returned. Sequoia had sold InterPrac a fortnight ago to their former CEO who registered a new company, Bellbird, just one day prior to the sale. The sale means Sequoia's parent company of InterPrac are no longer liable for debts owed to victims like Mr Richard Orr, who is terminally ill with cancer. Investors like Melinda Kee are left to fight this injustice while these companies make a mockery of our government and the financial industry. These people have no money. They are broke. If the Labor Party believes in super so much, why don't you give these people who have been nurses and who have been teachers back the money that was stolen from them? They do not have the resources to pursue these people. They're making it so hard for Mr Orr to even get access to the court, just playing the game till Mr Orr dies.

That is why One Nation says this is your personal asset, a personal asset that must be protected, and an expression of a personal asset is your capacity to have access to it when you need it, when you're under the pump, when it looks like you might lose your house or be kicked out into the street because you can't pay your rent—a portion of it for a portion of time. Now, if you believe absolutely philosophically that this should never happen, well, you already allow it to happen. You already allow it to happen under items of distress. In fact, record numbers under this current economic environment are getting access to it, but it's so convoluted and it's so restricted.

There is an implication that it's the government's asset, the national asset. The great fear that so many people have as the government gets further and further and further into debt is that they'll look for a way to try and pay the debt off. And there's this big cherry sitting out there, $4.5 trillion in super. To pay off their trillion dollars in debt, they'll start reaching into the super. And you might say, 'That's paranoid.' No, it's not. They've already started. They've already started the legislation to get access to your super, changing the tax rates, changing the capacity for you to get [inaudible]. They changed it for people over $3 million, and they changed it for another level for people over 10. And you say, 'That's just the edge.'

So what we are doing here in this amendment is reinforcing our belief that super is actually an asset of the individual. It comes from their money that they earned. It's not from the taxpayer. If the government believe their protection of super and how they look after it is so paramount and that you should never get it out, then I challenge them to go to those people who were in First Guardian and Shield who still have not got a cent from the government, have not been paid out, are still bereft and are going to go into their retirement after being a teacher or a nurse their whole lives without a cent. Somebody in this building has got to stand up for these people. I intend to do that. I intend to do it deliberately. I intend to do it consistently. This is yet another example of reinvesting in the individual. It's their asset. If the government believes that they've got the greater protection on it, then it should go out and protect those people.

I would like to second the motion. I agree with it and support the member for New England on the motion. I welcome it going to a debate.

I actually agree with the member for New England that super is Australians' money. It is not a national asset, as the government wishes it to be. It is actually people's money and it's there for their determination. We know that under legislation Australians can already access their super in times of hardship and difficulty. The problem I have with this amendment for the Australians who are doing it tough right now is it does nothing to improve their access to super. What it does do is actually let the Treasurer off the hook. Australians are doing it so tough right now because of the Treasurer's inflation and spending addiction. If we increase the number of people who can then take super as they see fit under this legislation, what we're actually going to do is let the Treasurer and the government off on the problems of their inflation and spending addiction, and we're going to let the Treasurer stay addicted to spending more money and continuing to increase the hardship for the Australian community. I think that would be a disaster. It won't be any good for the people who withdraw their super. It will actually make it even harder for all Australians to get ahead. It's one of the basic truisms of inflation. Inflation doesn't hit anybody specifically. It hits everybody in the most catastrophic way.

Small businesses in this nation now are struggling. They are barely able to keep their heads above water. What we have is a government that is continuing to spend. We don't have a cost-of-living crisis; we have a cost-of-government crisis. I don't want to make it any easier for this Treasurer to keep on with his addiction. I want to make sure that Australians have relief, and the only way we're going to be able to achieve that is not by increasing access, which is already provided for in the legislation. What we're going to end up with is a situation where we let the government off the hook and somehow people have a short-term reprieve and the only consequence they're going to be left with is continued punishment and pain from this government and its spending addiction.

This is the problem with the Albanese economic model and the economic model that operates under this government. It stokes inflation, it taxes inflation and it spends inflation. Making sure that Australians have access to be able to financially support themselves is corroded by the impact of inflation every step of the way. Until we get the government to control its spending addiction, Australians will continue to suffer under this government. Australians will continue to have higher costs when they go to the supermarket. They're going to pay more and get less whether they have access to their super or not. Small businesses are going to continue to have rising energy bills. They're going to have rising rents. They're going to have rising insurance premiums. They're going to continue to experience the cost of rising wages to try and keep up with the pressures of inflation, and, the more that happens, the more the government will continues to win.

Inflation continues to outstrip wages. Inflation continues to take away from the wealth of Australians. So many small businesses and so many Australian households are struggling and drowning under the pressure of inflation right now under the Albanese government. It's not because of an accident; it's by design. The government has an economic model that seeks to send Australians under financial water, and it gets to increase its tax take of the hard work, savings and sacrifice of Australians. I don't want to give this Treasurer some sort of green light. I don't want to give this Prime Minister a buck pass or the opportunity to move on. We have to—

The time for the debate has now concluded. There are 10 minutes available, and we'll make sure that each mover of an amendment does get 10 minutes to speak. The question now is the amendments circulated by the member for New England be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than seven members on the side of the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment circulated by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Member for Wentworth's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 1, page 48 (after line 22), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 5 — Independent review

31 Review of capital gains tax amendments

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of:

(a) the amendments made by this Schedule; and

(b) the amendments made by Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Act 2026 relating to cost base indexation and the minimum tax on capital gains.

(2) Without limiting subitem (1), the review must consider the effects of the amendments on investment, formation and employment in start-up and scale-up companies and small businesses more broadly.

(3) The review must commence as soon as practicable after 1 July 2028.

(4) The review must be completed, and a written report of the review must be given to the Minister, within the period of 6 months starting on the day when the review commences.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(6) In this item:

Minister means the Minister administering the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

I support the government's intent to rebalance Australia's income tax system. Making our tax system fairer and more sustainable is long overdue, though I will continue to argue that you're not rebalancing the tax system and until you commit to giving back every tax dollar you raise to income tax cuts. Otherwise, you are just raising taxes. But rebalancing the system can't come at the expense of Australia's dynamism and capacity to innovate, and it shouldn't need to. That's why my amendment requires a review of the IBCC and of indexation model more broadly as it affects innovation and small business as soon as practicable after its first year of operation.

I acknowledge the government's efforts in designing the IBCC. Its purpose is to shield productive innovative businesses from an indexation system that could otherwise subject Australian founders, employees and investors to some of the highest taxes of capital in the world, but the concession is deliberately narrow, riddled with tripwires and adds complexity. I'd like to give you an example. Yesterday, I was contacted by the founder of a small, profitable Australian digital health company. It's about a decade old with customers here and overseas, and about 95 per cent of its profit comes back to Australia. The company has just won a contract with an American client that will make it double in size. To service it, the company needs operational staff on the ground in the US. The founder now believes he may fail the predominant activity test because slightly more than half his team could end up in the US, even though the profits still come home, so, instead of celebrating, he's talking to lawyers and accountants about restructuring so the business can stay in Australia and still qualify. He's wading through this legislation at the same time I am, trying to work out if the carve-out will protect his business.

This shows that the IBCC risks undermining its own aims. It's meant to support companies scaling here and internationally, yet one of its innovation principles requires to a company to show international competitiveness, while the predominant activity test requires half of its people to be in Australia. Succeed overseas and you risk losing the concession.

Good intentions are not enough. The design of the IBCC will have real, if unintended, consequences for Australian innovators. We need a system that is fair, simple and predictable. This is what encourages innovation and investment. The truth is the IBCC is just trying to patch a flawed system. The indexation on capital gains tax is just the wrong way to tax risk taking, especially in low-capital businesses. The combination of the IBCC and indexation has three major flaws. It is complex, which chases away capital and risk taking. It is unfair. It allows a government to determine which businesses are innovative and which businesses are not. As someone who has run businesses, I tell you every single business takes risk, takes guts and is bloody hard to do. Thirdly, it is uncompetitive. We are ending up in low-capital rates, in low-capital businesses, with people paying in the 40s potentially in capital gains tax. That is uncompetitive around the rest of the world, and we cannot pretend that won't have real impacts in this country.

I urge the government. There are better ways of doing this. I have put one forward myself. I don't know that it is perfect, but it is a darn sight better than what the government is proposing right now. The government should fix this because, whatever happens, believe me, this bill will come back one day, because the IBCC and the indexation of capital gains on risk taking just make no sense.

I also want to challenge the opposition on this. You have voted against this bill, and the IBCC is as flawed as it comes, but it is the one thing that might protect some tech companies staying in this country, so do not ignore this bill. I cannot see how you would vote against this bill, because it makes a difference to innovative businesses. I hate the bill. I hate the taxation of capital gains via indexation on risk taking, but the government and certainly the shadow Treasurer should know that, if you vote against the IBCC, technology businesses that are relying on this to try and help stay in this country really matter and will be hurt by it. And if you vote against the ESVCLP and VCLP changes in this bill, that will also hurt the venture sector, which we need to support right now, because the government has made a whole bunch of mistakes in this space.

I urge the government to accept this amendment. It is very reasonable. It is asking for a review after one year, because this legislation will affect productive businesses, and this is a real challenge to the economy, and I think it is one that absolutely needs to be dealt with.

Before I call the member for Goldstein I want to remind all members—I didn't want to interrupt the member for Wentworth when it occurred—about language, to ensure that no swearing is used in the chamber.

[inaudible]

I thank the member for Wentworth for her apology to the House.

We'll be supporting this amendment, but I've got to say, it's somewhat galling to take lectures from the member for Wentworth about voting records on higher taxes when she has consistently supported, in the chamber today, the government's higher taxes on small businesses, particularly innovative small businesses. The member for Wentworth laid the groundwork—

The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The member for Kooyong on a point of order.

I was just wondering the relevance of the personal attacks by the member for Goldstein on the member for Wentworth to the amendment we're considering at this point.

The amendment was moved by the member for Wentworth. She spoke about the amendment She did raise a number of issues, I think including the shadow Treasurer, in her debate. And as members know, I like a free and fair debate. The member for Goldstein obviously won't be able to talk about just that one aspect, but he is entitled to respond to the issues raised, and I'll allow him to do so.

 Thank you, Speaker, for the consistency we're getting now in decision-making from the House, so that we can have free debate. I simply cannot understand: the member for Wentworth has laid the groundwork for higher taxes on her constituents and of course constituents in Kooyong, Curtin, Warringah, Wentworth and other seats, like Bradfield, and now they're trying to patchwork it and cover up the tracks of the higher taxes that are being imposed on small businesses, on innovative businesses, by making relatively minor amendments about structural problems. The issue and the challenge we face right now is that early-stage startups, innovative businesses—those most likely to contribute to economic growth, future jobs and employment, particularly in sectors like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and technology overall—have put their faith in the member for Wentworth. What has happened in practice is that the Treasurer has played her like a fiddle on these tax reform measures. As a consequence, all those businesses are now paying higher taxes.

The member for Goldstein will resume his seat for a moment. We'll take a point of order from the member for Warringah.

I'd ask that the member for Goldstein withdraw the unparliamentary inference he just made.

We'll do this in a systematic way. The remark the member for Goldstein made has caused some offence, and perhaps, to assist with the debate, he could assist the House by withdrawing.

To assist the House, I will withdraw—just as I wish the federal member for Wentworth could withdraw the legacy she has whereby she laid the groundwork for the Treasurer to increase taxes on small businesses and innovative businesses, and now they're trying to cover their tracks. We know that every step of the way the Treasurer has taken support from the member for Wentworth to put higher taxes on her community. The consequence now is that they're trying to find a way to get out of it. But they still go and vote for the substantive legislation in this chamber of 30 per cent minimum taxes on small businesses and innovative businesses. This is going to hurt the future job growth, future economic opportunity and future employment in this country.

This is a legacy between the Labor Party and the strong communities Australia party or whatever they like to call themselves—the teals—that is trading away the future of this nation. It is not something to be proud of.

Members can make as many interjections as they want—and we've got another one. They simply do not want to be held to the scrutiny and standard that they expect.

If the member for Mackellar wants to raise a point of order, she will need to return to her seat first. The member for Goldstein.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The problem we have is that, while we want to see changes to these tax laws, we don't want to see changes that simply make little tweaks. We want to see them completely scrapped.

The point of order concerns misleading the House. There's been a constant reference to the word 'teals', when he knows perfectly well that I voted with—

Order! There are other forms of the House, if you believe—

The member for Goldstein should address members by their proper titles—and maybe more specifically.

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. It's not a point of order. The member for Goldstein didn't refer to an individual. If he did refer to a member by their incorrect title, I would ensure it was corrected, but, at this stage, he is making—the member for Mackellar?

The point of order concerns misleading the House, because—

I appreciate that this is a spirited debate, but we need to follow the forms of the House. I appreciate that the emotions and issues are passionate, but we need to make sure we follow the standing orders and all forms of the House.

The time allocated for this debate has expired. The question now is that the amendment circulated by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment circulated by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.

Member for Kooyong's circulated amendment

That all words after "notes that" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

(b) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 3) Bill 2026 and the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Minimum Tax on Discretionary Trusts) Bill 2026 have been referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, but this bill has not; and

(c) Schedule 2 inserts a power for the Minister to determine, by legislative instrument, kinds of activities that are integral to R&D, after consulting only another Minister; and

(5) calls on to government to:

(a) refer its bill to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, so that provisions of Schedule 2 of the bill can be properly examined; and

(b) require the Minister to consult Industry Innovation and Science Australia, the Commissioner of Taxation, and industry, before making any determination under proposed subsection 355-25(7) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997".

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.

I pick up exactly where the member for Kooyong made her remarks. Her remarks were that this amendment is designed to make sure that there's proper consultation in this legislation and its effect and to not give unrelenting power to the minister. Of course, that has a very good basis. We should see more of that. There's just one fundamental problem, which is that the Australian people were never consulted in this legislation and its development. The Australian people were actually told this legislation was not going to be introduced before the last election. In fact, I believe it was 50 times over, to quote one eminent political figure, otherwise known as the Prime Minister. Now we have this additional tax, this extra tax burden, that is hitting research and development of the future of our country. Speaker, I don't know about you, but I cannot think of anything more outrageous than a direct tax assault on the initiative research basis of this country if we want to have an economy that is global, that is outward looking, that is competitive and has a focus on building the jobs and economic opportunity in the future of this nation. Instead, what we have is the cosy relationship and provision of a gliding pathway by certain MPs, teal MPs, Community Strong MPs—whatever we want to call them—and the government to increase taxes on the Australian people, particularly on research and development businesses.

The member for Kooyong on a point of order?

I understand that the member for Goldstein is enjoying his repeated ad hominem attacks this morning. He's not speaking to my amendment.

I need you to state the point of order.

The point of order is relevance. He's not speaking to my amendment. He's not actually even referring to it.

I've been very lenient with this consideration in detail because of some of the issues being raised. We're just going to have to return to the standing orders. It is specific. It's not a general debate, as the member for Kooyong is rightly pointing out. If any member wishes to enter the debate, they really—the purpose of this is to go through the detail that is being presented to the House, not to get into a more general debate about the reasons behind the bill or your thoughts on why the bill is there. It's got to be a technical debate. That's the purpose of this. If the member could refer to the clauses within the amendments before the House, I think that would assist the House in this debate.

Indeed, we are talking about an amendment to a tax bill specifically related to research and development and the need for consultation. I am agreeing with the proposition that we should have consultation about legislation associated with research and development that directly affects innovative businesses. Part of it is how we got here, the components of the legislation and the practical consequences of their interrelationship. What we know is that research and development communities, exactly as the member for Kooyong has correctly identified, were not consulted and have not been consulted under this legislation into the future. I will accept that point from the member for Kooyong. All I am simply highlighting is the inconsistency in the behaviour to get to that point and that we wish to have consultation into the future under this legislation, like how we would like to have had consultation in the lead-up to this legislation. We know that the practical effect of not having consultation under this legislation is that businesses are going to pay higher taxes, and, if we don't have consultation in the lead-up to the legislation, during the legislation or its implementation or practical consequences, small businesses, innovative businesses, and research and development in this country is going to find it harder to get ahead and build the future economic growth of this country. I am simply stating, for the member for Kooyong's needs, that some of us see that as enormously problematic, and we really would rather, instead of providing amendments to try and cover the tracks of the member for Kooyong and other members, simply oppose the bill.

The question is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

The question now is that the bill be agreed to.