Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Minister for Finance stood up and completely rejected this notion of being able to have quarterly instalments. He made some general criticisms that, supposedly, it would allow fraud and so on. He showed absolutely no consideration of the checks and balances that are in this particular amendment, which were worked through, as Senator Carr has just indicated. There are careful considerations. There is clearly a whole governance arrangement set out, with rules around what you have to do to be able to participate in the quarterly credits system. You can be refused participation; you have to apply; there are tests imposed to determine whether you are able to participate. You have to pass the following tests—the reasonable receipt test, the complying-taxpayer test and any extra test listed in the table for the tax offset. There is a whole governance arrangement. It is absolutely scandalous for the minister to stand here and just glibly say, 'This allows for fraud.'

This has the support of the R&D sector. It has the support particularly of small business—the most innovative part of the R&D sector.

This minister has now clearly revealed to the Senate that he has no real interest in facilitating research and development in Australia. His only interest is to get legislation through that will make sure that $1.1 billion does not go into research and development in Australia. I will be very surprised if the sector does not give him very strong feedback on that absolutely glib dismissal of a whole governance arrangement which has been previously worked through and put in place. All of the complying texts are there of how to work out and pay the quarterly credit amounts, to look through the whole disallowing of the proposed varied amounts and to notify the commissioner of proposed varied amounts and so on and so forth. It is all here in this amendment.

This is a very long and complicated amendment. It is based on what the government had in previous legislation that was developed. It requires careful consideration, not just a glib dismissal on the basis that it is some supposed thing that was thought up in five minutes; it is not. It has been carefully considered. There are the rules associated with it—the governance arrangements. I would be very interested to hear specifically in relation to this amendment if the minister can point to why and where he thinks the room for fraud is.