Mr CREAN(8.47 p.m.) —I rise again because I was interrupted during my last intervention. There are a couple of points I would like to make. I note that the significance of this amendment is that it does allow partnerships to effectively get into the cooperation arrangement for research and development. To the extent to which the essence of R&D was getting cooperation, we have been able to preserve an element of it through partnerships. Therefore, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has not succeeded in his grand stated claim that he was going to abolish syndication.

I was interested to note that, when the Treasurer was introducing this amendment and saying that they supported it, he said that the government would be making sure through legislation that this provision could not be used to recreate the syndicated proposals of before. What is very interesting in that regard is that the Labor Party moved this amendment in the Senate last night to insert `unless the financing of the proposed research and development expenditure is to be fully at risk and not involve any element of a guaranteed return to any investor', and the govern ment voted against it. Here we have a Treasurer saying that there are rorts which he cannot ever justify while he puts out fraudulent examples. I say `fraudulent examples' because we had Minister Moore the other day saying, when I asked him why he had used `actual examples' when they were not actual:

. . . I am prohibited from giving precise examples. These are examples of what happened in every case—

but wait for this—

with the finer details changed to fit the occasion.

In other words, the Wright family had moved into research and development syndication! Here is the Treasurer talking about honesty, openness and legitimate rorts, yet he puts up fraudulent examples. Some example! You ought to be ashamed of yourself for introducing fraudulent cases to justify your abolition of syndication.

The fact remains that you voted against our proposed amendment to ensure that there had to be an `at risk' circumstance and there could not be any element of guaranteed return to any investor. What hypocrisy! You come into this place saying that you want genuine research and development, that you want risk, that you do not want guaranteed returns, but as soon as we move an amendment in the parliament to that effect, you vote against it.

The other point I will dwell on is the crowing of the Treasurer, saying how much the government have saved by abolishing research and development syndication. Let us look at what the abolition of syndication saves the budget over four years. Their original proposal was $670 million, but from that has to be deducted the $340 million which has gone into the START program. So at best you have a net $330 million, from which you now have to deduct, as a result of the next amendment that you are going to cop—another one that you have been rolled on—another $160 million for research syndication.

In other words, your great savings from abolishing research and development syndication are, at best, $170 million over four years. You have thrown the baby out with the bathwater for that amount of money. You have tried to argue that there are billions of dollars of savings in this, but you cannot substantiate it. I would be interested in the Treasurer telling me where the great savings are in the abolition of syndication.

The fact of the matter is that your big savings come from abolishing the 150 per cent tax concession, which you have taken down to 125 per cent. Syndication saves you very little, yet your great railing in public has been the need to abolish syndication. You have failed in that regard and you have fraudulently pursued your case. (Time expired)