Milton Dick

The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Adam Bandt

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Page 3 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Capacity Investment Scheme Program

Climate Change Act 2022

1 After Part 4

Add:

Part 4A — Capacity Investment Scheme

15B Simplified outline of this Part

The Capacity Investment Scheme Program must be implemented to achieve at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity and at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity.

15C Administration of the Capacity Investment Scheme Program

(1) If, at the commencement of this subsection, the Capacity Investment Scheme Program is prescribed by legislative instrument under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, then:

(a) the Commonwealth must make, vary or administer arrangements in relation to the carrying out of activities by one or more persons under the Capacity Investment Scheme Program; and

(b) those arrangements must result in, by the end of 2030:

(i) at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity; and

(ii) at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity.

Note: The arrangements referred to in this subsection may include arrangements made, varied or administered before the commencement of this subsection.

(2) If advice of the Climate Change Authority under subsection 14(1) indicates a material risk to the achievement of subsection (1), the Minister's Annual Climate Change Statement under section 12 must provide a response to that advice.

15D Amendment of the Capacity Investment Scheme Program

(1) An instrument made under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (the amending instrument), that varies or revokes another instrument made under that subsection that prescribes the Capacity Investment Scheme Program, does not come into effect until the amending instrument has been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument made under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 that varies or revokes another instrument made under that subsection if that other instrument does not prescribe the Capacity Investment Scheme Program.

One thing we know for sure is that the Liberals will stop at nothing to attack renewables. We have seen this in the past, where they used every opportunity to try and get rid of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency as well as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Those two agencies have driven huge investment in renewables in this country and given great confidence to the renewables industry, which we know we need to grow if we're to get out of coal and gas—which the scientists are telling us we must do if we are to have any chance of tackling the climate crisis.

We also know that the Leader of the Opposition's dangerous nuclear fantasy is a ploy to extend the life of coal and gas in the system and threaten investment in renewables. We've even heard the Leader of the Opposition say so himself—that, under his dangerous fantasy of a plan, coal and gas will have to stay in the system for longer. In many respects, that is what his agenda is all about. We know that the opposition's energy policies have been written by the coal and gas industries because they know now that renewables are not only the best way of cutting emissions but the cheapest form of electricity.

Milton Dick

Order! I'm reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Australian Greens, but we are in consideration in detail. He has moved an amendment to schedule 2—Capacity Investment Scheme Program. He will need to confine his remarks to the detailed amendment he's moving. It is not a general debate.

Adam Bandt

I understand that, Speaker, and that is exactly what my amendment goes to.

We are on clear notice now not only historically, having seen the Liberals, when they are in power, do everything they can to attack renewable energy; we are now on notice that this Leader of the Opposition will do everything he can to slow down investment in renewable energy and storage in this country. The amendment I am moving will enshrine the government's Capacity Investment Scheme in law in order to oblige the next two governments to meet the 32-gigawatt-by-2030 renewables and storage target, which is made up of 23 gigawatts of renewable generation and nine gigawatts of clean dispatchable energy.

We know we need these protections in law. Even now, even from opposition, the Leader of the Opposition's announcements are designed to threaten the unstoppable growth of renewables in this country by giving public support to coal and gas. It should be the other way around. Public money should not be going to prop up coal and gas or nuclear. The support that is needed is the support that is going to drive down emissions and also deliver people the cheapest electricity, which is renewables backed by storage.

For a long time the Greens have called for a renewable target and a storage target to be enshrined in law, to give the industry the certainty it needs and to ensure that we make the shift in an orderly and planned way that drives down the cost of electricity and also drives down our emissions. The Capacity Investment Scheme put forward by the government is not necessarily the way that we would have done it, but it is a scheme that is going to assist with that transition—so we have given it our support. What this will do is essentially Dutton-proof that scheme, Leader-of-the-Opposition-proof that scheme.

Milton Dick

Order. The member—

Adam Bandt

I withdraw. It will ensure that scheme is protected in law. We know from history that Liberals will stop at nothing to attack renewables and storage and to try to direct public money into coal, gas and now nuclear. We also know that if there is protection in legislation for good measures, like we saw with ARENA and the CEFC, then they can be protected and industry can be given certainty.

We know what the Leader of the Opposition's plans are for the future and that he is trying, even from opposition—where I hope he stays for a very, very long time—to stop the growth of renewables. These amendments will give the industry support they need by safeguarding and enshrining protection for support for renewables and storage.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.

Michael Sukkar

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) government business order of the day No. 5 relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 being called on immediately; and

(2) all questions required to complete passage of the bill being put without delay.

I won't detain the House for too long, but this should be a very uncontroversial motion here today. Standing orders ought to be suspended so that the House can finally conclude consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024. This bill has been sitting in this House since November last year. Everyone in this place, until yesterday, thought the bill was ready to go to the Senate, but the government on Monday, very abruptly and unusually, postponed debate on the bill in the middle of consideration in detail. No public explanation has been offered by the government as to why this bill has been stalled. And absent any credible explanation from the government, the bill should be passed today. Because the Assistant Treasurer is responsible for the bill, it may not be surprising there has been some stuff-up along the way.

Part of the object of the bill is to obviously legislate the instant asset write-off, which is a proud coalition reform. But sadly 27,000 small businesses have closed under this government, and it beggars belief that in the situation where we have small businesses struggling that this measure would be delayed any further. The instant asset write-off is a proud coalition policy, which was unfortunately adjusted by this government. We are enthusiastically willing to support it, so why don't we do it today and support small businesses? This has been sitting here since November. Let's get moving!

To be clear, the coalition's position, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in last year's budget in reply, is to extend the value of assets that are eligible for the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and to make this permanent for small businesses. There are small businesses throughout our country who are struggling like never before. They have an increasingly aggressive ATO pursuing tax debts. They have a weak economy and very little consumer confidence, which I know is weighing on small businesses in every single member's electorate. On that basis, one would imagine that government MPs in particular are keen to get this measure through the House, get this measure into the Senate and ultimately deliver the tax relief that small businesses need.

Unfortunately, Labor voted against a series of amendments to achieve this eight times last year. It's pretty clear the government have made a decision that they're going to slow ball this. They're going to filibuster this for as late as possible. But every single day of delay creates uncertainty for small businesses. There's no reason why we can't come together as a parliament today and pass the bill.

This unexplained delay is highly unusual. One can only imagine the sorts of errors that have occurred or are occurring and the busy fix that's going on behind the scenes, but the parliament has not been advised of what that is. The parliament has no explanation as to how the government may have stuffed up this bill, to put it in that ineloquent way, and so on that basis it should be debated immediately. We should conclude this bill today, get it done right now.

Ultimately, if the government truly cared about supporting small businesses, which I'm sure many members opposite do, they would support this motion. End the uncertainty on the instant asset write-off scheme and let's get the bill through the Senate today, without delay. There's absolutely no reason why this cannot be dealt with immediately. This could be a moment where we move swiftly to help small businesses throughout our country, and the opposition is keen to swiftly facilitate that.

Ian Goodenough

Is the motion seconded?

Kevin Hogan

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

Milton Dick

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved on the second reading of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that this bill be read a second time.

Lisa Chesters

In accordance with standing order 113, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today for the suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the honourable member for Fairfax on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question now is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet UG105 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Luke Howarth

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

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

(3) Schedule 2, page 5 (lines 1 to 15), omit the Schedule.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the opposition amendments moved by the member for Petrie be agreed to.

Maria Vamvakinou

The question is that the amendment to government amendment (2) moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to. I put that question. Those of that opinion say aye, those against no. The noes have it? Minister? The minister may assist the chair.

Stephen Jones

If I can assist the chair and the House, I'm very conscious of the fact that we've got colleagues up the back who are very keen to congratulate the member for North Sydney on an excellent valedictory speech. Those very same members are very engaged in the amendment before the House, so, if it suits the will of the House, it would be good if we could re-put the question.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the House agree to the amendments moved by the honourable member for Warringah. These are amendments to government amendments.

Stephen Jones

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet UG105 as circulated together.

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

(2) Page 6 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business entities

Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997

1 Section 328-180 (heading)

Omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2025".

2 Subsection 328-180(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of increased access year )

Omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2025".

3 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d)

Omit "30 June 2024" (wherever occurring), substitute "30 June 2025".

4 Subparagraphs 328-180(5)(e)(ii) and (6)(e)(ii)

Omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2025".

Luke Howarth

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1 to government amendment (2) on sheet UG105 together.

(1) Amendment (2), omit "$20,000 instant", substitute "Instant".

(2) Amendment (2), items 1 to 4, omit the items, substitute:

1 Section 328-180 (heading)

Omit "to30 June 2024".

2 Subsection 328-180(1) (definition of increased access year )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

increased access year: an income year is an increased access year if any day in the year occurs on or after 12 May 2015.

3 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d)

Omit "$20,000", substitute "$30,000".

4 Paragraph 328-180(4)(d)

Omit "and on or before 30 June 2024" (wherever occurring).

5 Paragraph 328-180(5)(e)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(e) were a reference to $30,000, if the amount is so included at any time on or after 1 July 2023.

6 Paragraph 328-180(6)(e)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(e) were a reference to $30,000, in relation to a deduction for an income year than ends on or after 1 July 2023.

My amendments will remove schedule 2 from the bill. It strikes at the government's attack on small business, which denies deductibility for the general interest charge and the shortfall interest charge. It will also amend the government amendment on the instant asset tax write-off. Removing deductibility of ATO interest charges on schedule 2 of this bill would deny deductions for ATO interest charges: the general interest charge and shortfall interest charge.

We believe this is another attack on small business. We've seen some 27,000 small and medium businesses close in the last three years. This is another added burden to these businesses at a time when many of them are doing it quite tough. Small businesses at this time can least afford what the government is doing, and that is why I am moving these amendments to remove the schedule.

The current arrangements, which allow for deductibility, take into account the uncertainty of the tax environment and that filed positions can be reviewed well after a tax return is lodged. The policy intent of these existing interest charges is to neutralise the loan benefit that a taxpayer gets due to the late payment of tax. The point of it is to put a taxpayer who is late paying tax in the same position as a taxpayer who has paid tax on time. But making these interest charges non-deductible goes beyond neutralising this loan benefit. It is effectively now an immediate penalty regardless of the debt levels or culpability of the late taxpayer. Denying these deductions is punitive. It risks exacerbating financial hardship for small businesses and their staff, who are already facing challenges, as I said before, such as high inflation, elevated interest rates and cash flow constraints. These businesses are facing record insolvencies, and, instead of tackling this issue, the government is hammering the small businesses again.

The government's proposed schedule 4 of the bill continues Labor's attempts to decimate the instant asset tax write-off. As I've said before, the instant asset tax write-off was previously pretty well unlimited during COVID but has now wound down to $20,000 and is not even ongoing. It should be ongoing. It should be standard business procedure for any small and family business in Australia that the instant asset tax write-off becomes permanent—100 per cent. And $20,000—I mean, you can't buy a vehicle; there are very few items you can buy with $20,000. Labor's proposal would limit the instant asset write-off to that $20,000 and not make it permanent.

The government has consistently been slow to provide certainty on the instant asset tax write-off, and this leaves small businesses in limbo and faced with uncertainty when they invest in their business. The coalition 100 per cent supports SMEs, and we're committed to lower, simpler, fairer taxes for Australia's 2.5 million small businesses. The coalition's position, as outlined in this year's budget-in-reply, is to extend the value of the assets eligible and to make this deduction permanent.

I would love to lift it way higher. As far as I'm concerned it should be $150,000-plus for an instant asset tax write-off. But the additional spending of the government—some $350 billion plus on top of the last budget that Josh Frydenberg handed down—makes it difficult right now to lift it beyond $30,000. People will have to wait; hopefully a coalition government is elected very soon, under the leadership of Peter Dutton, and we will have to wait for the taxes to come in as businesses improve. As businesses get more confidence and we see more company tax come in and income taxes go up, that's when we'll be able to, at some stage in the future, hopefully lift it beyond $30,000. But, right now, $20,000 and not making it permanent is a disgrace, and it shows how little the Albanese Labor government regard small and family businesses.

The coalition is serious about providing that lifeline, and I call on the government to support my amendment. It's not a big ask. As I said, we haven't made it $150,000, or unlimited, as it was previously; we've just lifted it from $20,000 to $30,000; it's not a big increase, and it's something the government should consider. You'd have bipartisan support to do that before the upcoming election.

Stephen Bates

Would the member for Petrie be able to clarify, regarding those amendments you have moved, that you've moved only sheet 1? My understanding is that these amendments only go to the instant asset write-off and do not remove schedule 2 of the bill. I ask just because he referenced that during his speech, so I just want to clarify.

Luke Howarth

No, it does remove schedule 2 of the bill as well. So, it's removing schedule 2 of the bill in relation to striking out the general interest charge and the shortfall interest charge. Obviously we want small and medium businesses to pay, but they can receive that additional interest as tax deductions at the moment. The government is taking all that away, and we're saying that at this time, when there is high inflation, when 27,000 businesses have gone broke around Australia under this government, we think it is the wrong time to do that. So, it does remove that, and also the change to the instant asset tax write-off—just lifting it from 20 to 30 and making it permanent.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the opposition be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.