by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4000 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1, 2 and 3", substitute "Schedules 1 and 2".

(2) Schedule 3, page 42 (line 1) to page 46 (line 14), to be opposed.

Once again, we see the poison pill tactics of the Labor government. This bill is ostensibly about bringing dodgy tax advisers into line in the wake of the PwC tax adviser scandal, and One Nation has no issue with those parts of the bill. Tax advisers who do the dodgy should be punished. White-collar crime is not dealt with harshly enough in this country. But, instead of getting to focus on what works in this bill, Labor, with their coalition mates the Greens, have buried a 50 per cent capital gains tax concession for foreign owned renewable energy projects in this legislation. Labor must stop this practice. Stop the poison pills. Let us debate the core issue of your bill separately. If you're so proud of your swindle factories, set aside these tax changes in a separate bill. We're moving to strike out schedule 3 so that you can bring it back for debate honestly. I'll even give Labor the title: 'Treasury laws amendment (tax cuts for foreign investors and swindle factories) bill 2026'.

Let's look at the schedule in isolation. Labor is handling foreign swindle-factory owners a CGT discount that was too generous for your everyday mum-and-dad investor or for struggling small businesses. That includes foreign owned renewable companies getting a 50 per cent discount. But hardworking Australians are paying the full tote. Labor is ripping Australians off while looking after foreign shell companies. It is a testament to their unwavering commitment to the green energy transition at the expense of the Australian people. Schedule 3 was originally drafted by Labor to apply until 30 June 2030. That was until their favourite coalition partner, the Greens, stepped in and had it extended out to 2040—more votes-for-sale shenanigans. This is at an estimated cost of around $325 million to the taxpayer. But what do Labor and the Greens care? They removed the CGT discount for individuals precisely to pay for this kind of spending—to prop up their failing, faltering transition.

Our amendment would remove schedule 3 from this bill, removing this ridiculous CGT concession for foreign owners, and reinstate fairness for Australians. But the Labor-Greens alliance is more interested in looking after offshore companies than the Australian people. Labor told Australians that its changes to negative gearing and CGT would level the playing field and help young Australians buy their first home. Instead, it is tanking the housing market, with no evidence that first home buyers are having any more luck—probably because they're also fighting against the inflation and collapsing real wages that are part and parcel of this Labor government's economy.

This schedule of the bill is only going to make life harder as more public money is tipped into the renewable energy black hole. If these swindle factories were worth a damn, they wouldn't need to be propped up by tax concessions. Labor is more interested in driving our electricity prices sky high and looking after the needs of foreign owned wind turbine outfits. They continuously tell you that they are lowering the wholesale price of electricity, but Australians are paying retail prices, and they feel the pain every time they open their power bill. Every Australian household, pensioner, school and hospital is paying the retail price—the price that includes the ideological green fantasy, the network and transmission costs and the endless subsidies. One Nation is going to scrap net zero. We are out of the Paris Agreement. The climate change department will be gone—no more of Minister Bowen's secret Capacity Investment Scheme. We will save the budget billions every year.

If their spending isn't enough, let's shed some light on these foreign companies that will benefit from the 50 per cent CGT concession from Labor. Foreign owned wind farms are set up as special purpose vehicles. If the wind farm owned by the foreign SPV fails, goes bankrupt or becomes legally liable for noise nuisance and fire damage to neighbouring farms, the creditors in many cases cannot seek reimbursement from the foreign parent company. The Labor government is already pouring subsidies into these SPVs through renewable energy certificates, carbon credits and the Capacity Investment Scheme at a cost of who-knows-what. Much of this spending is shrouded in the commercial-in-confidence mist.

What are we paying for each of these turbines? There are estimates of up to $1 million a turbine, so, if a wind farm has 100 turbines, these foreign owned SPVs could pocket tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds every year, and now the government is giving them a 50 per cent CGT concession when they change hands as well. The Labor government is quite happy to crash the housing market with tax grabs while keeping the renewable gravy train going. On top of the trillion-dollar transmission upgrade required to reach net zero and the 35,127 wind turbines spread over four million hectares of our country, foreign companies responsible for the destruction of our forests and farmland are getting a 50 per cent concession. What is Labor doing to this beautiful country? What are you smoking over there?

I implore everyone in this chamber to use our review powers properly. We should not be passing consequential legislation as an add-on to a completely unrelated bill. Separate the bill, debate it and vote on it in its own right on its own merits. Our amendment to this bill will remove schedule 3, thereby ensuring that foreign companies pay their CGT and levelling the playing field for Australians. Remove this schedule and let us debate it separately. Give it the light of day that Labor has so desperately starved it of. Come on, 'party of transparency'. You can do it.

():  It's been explained to me procedurally why we're dealing with this a second time. It's too complicated. Let's be open about it. I'm not capable of explaining to you why we're doing this discussion again, but we are doing it again. Government will oppose this amendment. We are committed as a government to supporting rebuilding Australia's electricity sector. The concessional arrangement in schedule 3 recognises the value of that contribution and the necessity of rebuilding the moribund, underfunded, underinvested-in electricity system that this government inherited in 2022. While I'm on my feet, I want to say that what you say when you repeat Mr Joyce's slur—

I remind you to go through the chair.

Not that you would say something like this, Chair, but if one were to say it, to repeat Mr Joyce's slur against thousands of decent, honest, hardworking, blue-collar Australians, like riggers, sparkies, concreters, metal fabricators and steelworkers, who are engaged in this work—oh, you don't like it, do you?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts on a point of order.

Mr Joyce has never slurred workers. He's always tarnished the parasite—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you need to raise your point of order, not just go into a debate. You'll have your opportunity to follow the minister after his contribution. Then you can debate the minister. You need to raise a point of order.

The minister is misrepresenting Mr Joyce.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order.

It is a slur against decent Australians in every regional centre who work in that sector with the proud nation-building work of rebuilding our electricity sector. The sly, sneaky slur that Mr Joyce says in his hysterical, red faced, shameful attacks on decent blue collar Australians that Senator Whitten repeats in a lame, derivative way is completely beyond.

Minister, I'm going to ask you to withdraw, please.

Withdraw all of it? Mr Joyce's behaviour is calculated to sow division in country communities—there's a lot of talk about the algorithm—to try and drive outrage. It pours scorn on decent, honest Australians who have done more to rebuild Australia's electricity system than Mr Joyce or Senator Whitten or any of these characters will ever do. It is also a slur against the people in regional economies who will benefit—the workers in Gladstone, the workers in Newcastle, whose jobs depend upon not ideology and posts and memes and far-right bonkers nonsense on the internet but on real projects being brought forward that deliver electricity for real blue-collar jobs in real communities, not the online communities you lot exist in. It is shameful. It is a slur. You ought to be held to account—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister—

Senator Whitten ought to be held to account. Mr Joyce ought to be held to account. Denigrating ordinary Australians is no way to proceed if you want to appeal to ordinary Australians in the regions and outer suburbs. They don't like being bullied. They don't like being denigrated. They don't like it when people direct hate towards them, and that is what that swindle factory's argument and all the nonsense that goes around it is all about—pouring scorn on ordinary Australians—and you ought to stop it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

Senators, given that that one was agreed to, we don't need to deal with amendment (1) on sheet 4000.

by leave—I move the Greens amendments on sheet 3997:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedules 6, 7 and 8", substitute "Schedules 6, 7, 8 and 9".

(2) Page 78 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Animal welfare gift deductibility expansion

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1 Subsection 30-45(1) (cell at table item 4.1.6, column headed "Fund, authority or institution")

Repeal the cell, substitute:

2 Application of amendments

The amendments of item 4.1.6 of the table in subsection 30-45(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 made by this Schedule apply in relation to gifts or contributions made on or after the first 1 July to occur after the commencement of this item.

These amendments broaden the definition of animal welfare work to ensure that any person who donates to an animal welfare charity is able to receive the tax benefits that they should. Currently the Income Tax Assessment Act covers only organisations who work on behalf of native wildlife or provide direct animal-care services. This means that most activities of animal welfare charities are not eligible for deductible gift recipient status, known as DGR. Excluded from DGR status are organisations that work on: preventing animal cruelty; providing community education, disaster and crisis emergency response; advocating for improved animal welfare standards; and providing expertise and advice to governments and industry stakeholders.

The current laws limit access to major fundraising platforms, restrict donor choice and discharge important work that addresses animal cruelty at its source. With bird flu on our shores, there could not be a more pressing time to support animal welfare charities.

When I brought these amendments to the Senate in March, the Albanese government, the coalition and One Nation all voted them down. It is a great shame, though, that Labor is not willing to support such a simple change, which is widely supported and would help organisations that do this critical animal welfare work.

People in this country care deeply about animals. Animal welfare charities are consistently in the top three causes that Australian donors support. Independent reviews by the Productivity Commission and the Department of Social Services have recommended expanding tax-deductible-gift-recipient status to include animal welfare advocacy charities. Labor said they would consider these recommendations from the Productivity Commission, but that was over two years ago, and still there is no action. I'm eager to hear today what new excuse the Albanese government has for refusing to act on expert advice. I'm sure that we will hear how Labor is working on it, but we know that just working on it doesn't mean that the change is going to happen.

These amendments are a critical step forward for animal welfare organisations and respond to a long-running campaign from the animal welfare community, and they would make a very significant difference to organisations who do so much to care for animals. I commend these amendments to the Senate, but I have a question for the minister: has any progress been made on the Productivity Commission's recommendations on expanding tax-deductible status to include animal welfare advocacy charities, and, if there has been any progress made, what is that progress and when will you actually make this change?

There are a number of assertions before the question, so I might just deal with those now and not deal with them again when we deal with the amendments.

Certain animal welfare organisations are already eligible for deductible gift recipient eligibility under the existing general categories. As Senator Faruqi indicated, organisations with the principal purpose of short-term direct care or rehabilitation of animals such as WISE and Wildlife Recovery Australia are endorsed as DGRs. Certain organisations have also been specifically listed—RSPCA state and territory affiliates, for example. The government asked the Productivity Commission in 2023 to undertake a review of philanthropy to identify opportunities and obstacles to increase philanthropic giving. We are working our way through those recommendations. The Productivity Commission grouped their recommendations around four pillars: firstly, improving the system that determines which charities have access to tax-deductible donations; secondly, enhancing the regulatory framework for charities and ancillary funds; thirdly, improving public information on charities and donations; and fourthly, improving access to philanthropic networks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I wish to rise on this matter. Far from expanding the number of charities covered by DGR status, in fact, there are a number of supposed charities that should lose their charity status altogether—organisations such as Animals Australia, which paid $140,000 to a deckhand on the Awassi Express in order to close down ventilation. This is all on the public record in a statutory declaration from one of his shipmates. Animals Australia paid $140,000 to cause animal suffering and then used that as the political wedge to close down the live export industry. Far from expanding this category, those organisations, particularly Animals Australia, should lose their charity status altogether.

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3997, moved by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

I will use this opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of former senator Richard Di Natale. Welcome back.

Welcome back, Richard, after six years—six whole years! I seek leave to move the Greens's amendments on sheet 4013.

Leave granted.

I move the Greens's amendments on sheet 4013:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 4 and 5", substitute "Schedules 4, 5 and 5A".

(2) Page 67 (after line 4), after Schedule 5, insert:

Schedule 5A — Loss of deductible gift recipient status for supporting illegal occupation

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

1 At the end of subsection 30-125(1)

Add:

Note: However, the entity is not entitled to be endorsed if the entity has supported an illegal occupation (see section 30-150).

2 At the end of subsection 30-125(2)

Add:

Note: However, the entity is not entitled to be endorsed if the entity has supported an illegal occupation (see section 30-150).

3 After section 30-130

Insert:

30-150 No entitlement to endorsement for entities supporting illegal occupation

(1) An entity is not entitled to be endorsed as:

(a) a *deductible gift recipient (despite subsection 30-125(1)); or

(b) a *deductible gift recipient for the operation of a fund, authority or institution (despite subsection 30-125(2));

if the entity has supported an *illegal occupation.

(2) The *Foreign Affairs Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a declaration specifying an occupation of the whole or part of a territory as an illegal occupation.

Application in relation to non-legal persons

(3) An entity that is:

(a) a partnership; or

(b) a trust; or

(c) an unincorporated body or association;

is taken to have supported an *illegal occupation if an accountable person for the entity has supported the illegal occupation in the person's capacity as an accountable person for the entity.

Definitions

(4) For the purposes of this section, an accountable person for an entity is:

(a) in the case of a partnership—a person who is a partner in the partnership; or

(b) in the case of a trust—a person who is a trustee of the trust; or

(c) in the case of an unincorporated body or association—a person who is a member of the governing body or committee of management (however described) of the unincorporated body or association.

(5) For the purposes of this section, an entity has supported an *illegal occupation if the entity has in any way (whether directly or indirectly) advocated, prepared, planned, assisted in, financed, fostered, supported (within the ordinary meaning of that expression), participated in or contributed to the establishment, maintenance or expansion of the illegal occupation.

4 Subsection 995-1(1)

Insert:

illegal occupation: see subsection 30-150(2).

5 Application of amendments

Section 30-150 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to entities that have supported (within the meaning of that section) an illegal occupation after the commencement of this item, whether:

(a) that support began before or after that commencement; or

(b) the entity is endorsed, or proposed to be endorsed, before or after that commencement.

These amendments are a crucial change to DGR status, and they ensure that no organisation that supports illegal occupation overseas receives tax subsidies here.

Genocide is a war crime. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. But, in this country, you can send money to fund those war crimes and you'll receive a tax deduction. Investigations by Michael West Media revealed that charities registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission that are benefiting from Australian taxpayer subsidies have hosted fundraisers linked to the IDF and illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. These charities are helping to bankroll the genocide in Gaza by channelling funds to organisations linked to the IDF and to violent illegal settlements off the back of Australian taxpayer money.

When I moved the same amendment to a Treasury laws amendment bill in March this year, Senator Chisholm told the Senate that the ACNC's external conduct standards 'do not extend to conduct under international law'. So, in essence, this government doesn't care if charities are funnelling money to support war crimes. Senator Chisholm went on to say that charity status can be revoked 'where governance and external conduct standards are not met'. But repeated investigations have shown that Australian based charities are indeed funding settler crimes in the occupied West Bank, yet these organisations continue to enjoy charitable DGR status. External conduct standard 4 of the ACNC 'requires charities to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas'. How can supporting ethnic cleansing, settler occupation and the murder of Palestinians be ensuring 'the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas'? It cannot, and the ACNC has not been able to answer these questions.

These amendments would ban that once and for all. These amendments would strip any entity of DGR status if the entity has, in any way—whether directly or indirectly—advocated, prepared, planned, assisted in, financed, fostered, supported, participated in or contributed to the establishment, maintenance or expansion of an illegal occupation. By maintaining DGR status for these supposed charities, the government says that this violence is okay—that is what this government is doing—that these murders are okay, that this ethnic cleansing is okay. It is yet another way that the Albanese government props up Israel's genocide of Palestinians. Labor is more than happy for those who participate in, sustain and fund the illegal occupation of the West Bank, an occupation that Labor itself has recognised as illegal—yet it gets a tax deduction.

While Labor refuses to act, the situation in the West Bank gets worse and worse. While the world's eyes have been focused on Gaza, settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has escalated unabated. Just last week, two Palestinian teenagers were murdered and an entire village was razed to the ground when settlers entered under police and military escort. Khalil Abu Alia, who was 16 when he was killed by an IDF soldier, was about to start 11th grade. He was on the doorstep of his home and was shot in the neck. Also killed was 19-year-old Omar al-Naasan, who recently graduated high school. Israeli soldiers and settlers had already killed three other students from the same school this year alone. These are whole worlds and lives extinguished in evil, depraved and violent attacks that have become part of everyday life for Palestinians.

At the same time, Israeli forces destroyed the homes of 12 Palestinian families in Khirbet al-Tabban, leaving 70 people homeless, including 28 children. According to B'Tselem, this is the 66th Palestinian community wiped off the map in just the last three years. Supporting these heinous crimes deserves a criminal investigation, not a tax deduction. These are not rogue individuals. They are escorted, supported and joined by Israeli military and police as part of the Israeli regime's broader plan to eliminate Palestine.

The International Court of Justice in 2024 called on party states, such as Australia, to 'prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. Flouting international law once again, Labor allows Australian charities who funnel money to support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, violence and occupation. All Labor offers to Palestinians who are being murdered and displaced every day is empty words. Labor say they mourn the death of Zomi Frankcom, but, in the same breath, they hand tax benefits to those who support her murderers.

It is completely disingenuous for the government to say it supports a Palestinian state while effectively subsidising its destruction. Senator Wong joined 21 countries to call the E1 settlement project in the West Bank 'unacceptable and a violation of international law'. So I do call on the Labor government today to put action behind those words and support these amendments, and I do commend the amendments to the Senate.

I do have some questions for the minister, though. Minister, these proposed Greens amendments would ensure that organisations supporting illegal occupations overseas cannot receive the benefit of DGR status or tax-deductible donations in Australia. Does your government think it is acceptable for a tax system to subsidise organisations whose funds support illegal settlements, the violent displacement of Palestinians and genocide?

Well, there is no DGR category and no purpose that allows charities to support illegal activities here in Australia or abroad. Registered charities already must ensure that they meet their ongoing obligations to the ACNC, including by complying with the ACNC's governance standards. The governance standards require a charity to remain charitable, operate lawfully and be run in an accountable and responsible way. Charities that operate overseas, including giving funds, must also comply with the ACNC's external conduct standards. These standards require charities to take reasonable steps to ensure appropriate standards of behaviour, governance, oversight and record keeping when undertaking activities or providing resources overseas.

Further, the standards require charities to comply with all Australian law, including the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and hate speech legislation. The external conduct standards also require a charity to comply with Australian law as it relates to international sanctions, terrorism financing, and slavery or slavery-like conditions and to have reasonable procedures to ensure compliance with those laws. The external conduct standards don't extend to conduct under international law.

The governance and external conduct standards require charities to ensure that their resources are used only to further their purposes and that they are operating in a way that is consistent with a not-for-profit entity. Charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met. Where a charity's registration is revoked, the ATO may also remove its access to DGR status and other tax concessions.

According to reports, the Chai Charitable Foundation, which made more than $19 million in tax-deductible donations in 2025, has hosted campaigns for organisations that publicly state that they provide direct support to IDF soldiers. The reporting also alleges that the foundation hosted fundraising campaigns linked to illegal settlements in Tekoa and Hebron in the West Bank. Michael West Media reported that the United Israel Appeal Australia, which reported $50 million of revenue in 2024, funds programs connected to the Lone Immigrant Soldiers initiative, which provides support for immigrants serving in the IDF. The report also alleges that the UIA has funded settlements to take over produce farms in the West Bank. Minister, do you know if the ACNC is investigating these organisations?

All I can say in relation to that is that the ACNC is an independent regulator and it's accountable for the work it does on an independent basis.

Shouldn't you, as the minister, know of these organisations and know they are getting tax deductions for promoting illegal settlements? And doesn't this show that the current safeguards are insufficient?

Chair, it's not possible for me to respond to Senator Faruqi's question by dealing with an individual matter. It may be possible in the context of Senate estimates to traverse questions to the ACNC when they appear. All I can do is refer to my previous answer about the governance standards and the external governance standards that provide a framework for managing the ACNC and the DGR status questions in relation to all these organisations.

External conduct standard 4 requires that charities operating overseas take reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people. Palestinians living under occupation, displacement and genocide are clearly vulnerable people. Australians are deeply distressed that tax-deductible donations may be supporting organisations connected to the very forces and settlements harming them. Minister, why won't the government listen to those concerns and support this amendment so that it can be crystal clear that Australian tax concessions cannot be used to subsidise what your own government recognises as an illegal occupation? What is the problem here?

I suppose there are two answers to the proposition that Senator Faruqi just put to me. One is to refer to the framework that I outlined at the beginning. That is the way that these questions in relation to all organisations that the ACNC has responsibility for are managed. The second is to say that the Australian government's approach in relation to the broader question has been very clear. I don't really understand the relationship that you're trying to draw between the purposes of this piece of legislation, which is about DGR status and a whole range of things. If there are individual matters which you want to pursue with the ACNC, there are multiple fora for you to do that in.

The coalition will not be supporting this amendment. Listening to Senator Faruqi, it would seem that supporting the IDF or the families of the IDF is somehow now a crime in Australia and that supporting the victims of Hamas's atrocities and the victims of Hezbollah's atrocities is somehow now a crime. That the abhorrent antisemitic comments that essentially blame the Australian Jewish community and other Australians that donate to this legal charity here in Australia—a legal Australian Jewish charity—are somehow akin to supporting genocide says everything you need to know about the Australian Greens and their views of the Australian Jewish community and their support for many of their families and loved ones in Israel. So the coalition will not be supporting this amendment, and we look forward to voting no as soon as possible.

I'll just indicate that what the government—the Prime Minister's injunction on these questions is as relevant today as when he first put it. Actually, what the government is seeking to do here is to effect some reform to schedules 6 and 7 of the bill, which relate to specific deductible gift recipients and to the Productivity Commission's philanthropy inquiry. I think the idea that that becomes a forum for the kind of argument that we've just heard should cause people to take a breath. In any case, the government is opposed to the amendment.

The question is that the amendments on sheet 4013 be agree to.

Minister, in the May budget, it's true to say that the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and in this bill now provides a 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement, isn't it?

I'm all ears, Senator.

So that's a correct statement?

Minister, would you like Senator Smith to repeat the question?

Well, when I said I was all ears, I wasn't listening that closely, Senator Smith. You should perhaps get me to focus!

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Smith, you've been given that task by the minister!

Minister, in the most recent budget, it's true to say that the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and that this bill now provides a 50 per cent capital gains discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement?

Now that I've heard it, all I can say is that these reforms are about strengthening the rules around when foreign investors have to pay tax, including for renewables and other infrastructure that's closely connected with Australian land.

It is true that the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and that this bill now seeks to provide a 50 per cent capital gains discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement?

Senator Smith's question is the same as his previous question. It's not just the same; it's identical. My answer is the same.

I was giving the minister an opportunity to improve upon his answer. I'll give the minister one more opportunity. Minister, it's true to say that in the most recent budget the government took the 50 per cent CGT discount away from small businesses and everyday Australians and that this bill now provides a 50 per cent capital gains discount for foreign investors in renewable energy projects until 2040. That's a correct statement?

Well, I'm always up for self-improvement! I've got a lot of progress to make. We can all improve. This bill does a range of things. One of them is to strengthen the rules around when foreign investors have to pay tax, including for renewables projects but projects that have a close connection to Australian land. You would have heard some of the exchange before. That's what this legislation does along the range of other questions that the bill engages.

Minister, can you explain why a 50 per cent discount is good for foreign investors in renewable energy projects but not good for Australian small businesses?

As you would know, Chair, and as Senator Smith would know, foreign investors generally don't get any CGT discount. The arrangements that go to and include the investment in new electricity generation that is required, which are dealt with in this legislation, are really about providing an appropriate transitional period for investments that have already been made.

I can see a pattern emerging, so I'll just repeat my question: Why is a 50 per cent discount good for foreign investors in renewable energy but not for Australian small businesses? What is the economic rationale?

The legislation is all about strengthening the system. It will raise significant revenue over time, and it will ensure, for example, that foreign residents pay a fair share of tax in Australia. The amendments that we've moved have a modest cost of around one-seventh of the overall revenue and more closely align the transitional arrangements with investment horizons that are typical of these kinds of large-scale renewable energy projects. That is the rationale that sits behind this important piece of work. As I indicated before, foreign investors generally don't get any CGT discount. The arrangements in this legislation are really about providing an appropriate transitional framework or transitional period for investments that have already been made.

I'll just turn to a different theme. The government has previously rushed through tax legislation. The consequence of that rushed legislation was a tax on widows and, it was revealed, also a hidden tax on super. That legislation had the benefit of just a two-day inquiry. This legislation will have no inquiry at all, and the government voted against Senator Canavan's amendment that would have provided for an inquiry into this bill. What's the government's justification for blocking a standard Senate inquiry into this bill and its various elements?

There has been extensive consultation and engagement with stakeholders and the sector throughout the development of this schedule. Schedule 1 of the bill enhances the Tax Practitioners Board's sanctions regime with a stronger penalties framework for registered tax practitioners. But referring this bill would cause further delays to much needed reforms that will more effectively penalise and deter inappropriate conduct by tax practitioners. Schedules 2 and 3 are due to commence on 1 October, so the delay that the coalition are proposing would have substantial revenue impacts. It's on that basis that we're proceeding in the way that we are.

Well, extensive consultation is not the same thing as parliamentary scrutiny. Should the Senate be on alert that this approach—extensive consultation, perhaps contested, but an absence of parliamentary scrutiny—is now the government's new modus operandi for tax legislation?

We have proposed the legislation in front of the Senate. It has been the subject of extensive consultation. It's a refinement that, as we indicated in the budget, would occur over time. It covers a narrow slice of the questions that were in the government's important tax reform package in the budget. I understand that you and colleagues oppose some elements of that and that you will continue to do that, but this is a very straightforward piece of legislation that I urge the Senate to support. On that basis, we oppose Senator Canavan's amendment.

Minister, extensive consultation can't be read as unanimous endorsement. Or can it?

The test in here, as I understand it, is not unanimous endorsement. It's difficult enough for a government that has a minority position in the Senate to pass legislation. You need to achieve a majority; if the new standard is unanimity, maybe we would get nothing done.

What, in fact, would have been the financial impact, or the financial cost, of a delay to the passage of this bill by just 10 days?

It's not possible to quantify that number—10 days is not the right period of time. If you delayed through another quarter, that would have a consequence that would be significant. We have consulted. We want this legislation to proceed through the Senate. We will ask for the Senate's support when the debate comes to a conclusion.

But the point is this: had there been a reference to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, that committee would have been in a position to report back to the Senate when the Senate next met in the sitting fortnight. So what would have been the financial impact, or cost, of that delay—minimal or major?

It is a whole quarter's impact. Senator Canavan's amendment proposed, I think, to report back in early October. That means, best-case scenario, that legislation would be operative in the first quarter of next year. That is a substantial impact.

Of course, had the government cooperated fully with the committee, the committee could have reported earlier than the proposed reporting date.

Was that rising intonation, Senator Smith? Is there a question there?

That was an observation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Do you have any questions?

No, I don't.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the bill stand as printed.

The question now is that the bill be reported. As a division has been called and it is after 6.30 pm, further consideration of this bill will be deferred.

Progress reported.