Mr FITZGIBBON (4:49 PM) —This is the mother of all Brough-ups. While the opposition supported the thrust of the Tax Laws Amendment (Loss Recoupment Rules and Other Measures) Bill 2005 the last time it was in this place, we are tempted on this occasion to oppose it. What the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer has just told the House is that, just as was the case with the sedition laws, the government is going to pass this important piece of legislation and then fix the Brough-ups after the event. So the business community is going to get new law as it relates to tax losses, the goalposts are going to move when this bill receives royal assent and then, some months down the track, the government is proposing to change the goalposts once again following a review that the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, who is at the table, announced some 10 minutes ago. So let us review what happened here.

The government put forward a bill and the opposition was very quick to point out the bill was flawed. So we moved an amendment in the Senate to try to improve the bill. The amendment related to the threshold and the same business test. The government chose to vote that amendment down. In the interim, it appears that the minister, unsurprisingly, has had some very heavy lobbying from the sectors that are going to be adversely affected by this bill. But rather than pull the bill—which is probably what he should do—and go back and fix it, he is proposing to let it pass the parliament and have a review for a few months. We do not know any of the details of the review. We do not know who is going to head the review, who is going to be involved in the review or what opportunity industry is going to have to make input into the review. He is going to pass the bill, have the review and move the goalposts on industry somewhere down the track.

We have been saying for weeks now that this bill is flawed. The Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Revenue has had every opportunity to fix the bill—

Mr Brough —How is it flawed?

Mr FITZGIBBON —but rather than fix it he is going to let it pass, have a review and fix it somewhere down the track. I take the interjection from the minister at the table. He said, ‘How is it flawed?’ Well, it is flawed in a number of ways. The key issue here is for industry—industry that relies on certainty in these provisions to make its investment decisions. This is creating huge uncertainty for them. The changes you are making, Minister, to the same business test are going to lock many out of the opportunity to claim these losses.

Mr Brough interjecting—

Mr FITZGIBBON —You are making changes.

Mr Brough —We’re not making any changes to the same business test.

Mr FITZGIBBON —The minister says he is not making any changes to the same business test. That is not true. In fact, the industry came to him for changes to the continuity of ownership test and, as a quid pro quo, he decided he would fiddle with the same business test. That is what happened, Minister. The industry has been telling you ever since that that will make it impossible for some sectors to access the recoupment of those losses, and that is going to have enormous adverse consequences for investment in particular industries, like the mining industry, where we have a crisis in mineral exploration and, of course, in a number of areas of venture capital.

My challenge to the minister at the table today, Minister Brough, is to forget about the review and to get the legislation right in the first place. We would have liked him to get the legislation right prior to the introduction of the bill—we would not have found it necessary to move amendments in the Senate and we would not be back here today still debating the bill. The right way to do these things, Minister, is to design the bill right in the first place. If the Senate demonstrates clearly to you, and the industry groups in the interim demonstrate clearly to you, that the bill is basically flawed, then pull the bill and go back and have another go at it. Let us not have this folly of letting a bill pass the parliament, having a review and then having another bill to fix the original flaws in the bill.

Already these changes are causing uncertainty for industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you imagine a business that has been planning its future on the basis that it would have access to these losses? Now it is going to have to contend with the fact that, after the passage of this flawed bill, those losses are not going to be available to them. They will also be asking themselves: what will be the situation in six or 12 months time, when the minister has had his review and decided that there is a better way of doing this? Minister, my challenge to you is to pull the bill. I know that industry is pretty keen to get the continuity of ownership test changed pretty quickly, but it is just not worth it. Just admit that you have it wrong, pull the bill, go back and have another go and we will be happy to support it if you get it right next time.