Division
Kim Carr At the start of the second reading debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013 I explained that Labor oppose this bill because it is not in the nation's interests. Senator Wang has circulated an amendment on behalf of the Palmer United Party, which will be debated if we actually reach the committee stage. I commend Senator Wang for seeking to alleviate some of the concerns that the Palmer United Party has identified about this bill. For instance, he and his colleagues felt that the government measure unfairly disadvantaged Australian firms over multinationals. In respect of Senator Wang's concerns I, in fact, have even more serious concerns about the implications of what is being proposed in the Palmer United amendment. The Palmer United amendment would see the removal of the R&D tax incentive for all firms with expenditure over $100 million. In practice this means that, for companies thinking of investing in R&D in Australia, any expenditure above $100 million would not attract an incentive. In a private briefing before the economics committee, Treasury officials admitted that there was no modelling available to show how many businesses would be affected by this $100 million cap. I repeat: no modelling for this measure has been undertaken. We have got no understanding of what impact this measure would have on whether firms would actually invest hundreds of millions of dollars in an R&D capacity in this country. We have no modelling, either, to indicate the longer term impacts on our economy or on jobs. In the same briefing Treasury estimated that the measure could affect up to 25 consolidated groupings of companies. The term 'consolidated grouping' means that diverse companies held by a common investment company will be treated as one single business entity. As such, when compared to their peers, smaller companies held within the larger group would be disadvantaged by the proposals. Quite frankly, that is not the only concern abou
Senate, 2015-02-09. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 31.
Question
Kim Carr At the start of the second reading debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2013 I explained that Labor oppose this bill because it is not in the nation's interests. Senator Wang has circulated an amendment on behalf of the Palmer United Party, which will be debated if we actually reach the committee stage. I commend Senator Wang for seeking to alleviate some of the concerns that the Palmer United Party has identified about this bill. For instance, he and his colleagues felt that the government measure unfairly disadvantaged Australian firms over multinationals. In respect of Senator Wang's concerns I, in fact, have even more serious concerns about the implications of what is being proposed in the Palmer United amendment. The Palmer United amendment would see the removal of the R&D tax incentive for all firms with expenditure over $100 million. In practice this means that, for companies thinking of investing in R&D in Australia, any expenditure above $100 million would not attract an incentive. In a private briefing before the economics committee, Treasury officials admitted that there was no modelling available to show how many businesses would be affected by this $100 million cap. I repeat: no modelling for this measure has been undertaken. We have got no understanding of what impact this measure would have on whether firms would actually invest hundreds of millions of dollars in an R&D capacity in this country. We have no modelling, either, to indicate the longer term impacts on our economy or on jobs. In the same briefing Treasury estimated that the measure could affect up to 25 consolidated groupings of companies. The term 'consolidated grouping' means that diverse companies held by a common investment company will be treated as one single business entity. As such, when compared to their peers, smaller companies held within the larger group would be disadvantaged by the proposals. Quite frankly, that is not the only concern abou
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.