House debates

Thursday, 22 March 2012

Bills

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012; Second Reading

11:00 am

Photo of Joe HockeyJoe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

If I were you, old sunshine, I would be worried about the Greens.

The Financial Services Council noted:

Our view is that a scale test should not be in law. Not only is it a barrier to entry but the test, as suggested in the current drafting, is very subjective, very open.

Industry stakeholders are largely all on the same page in believing that a scale test is problematic, confusing and redundant.

The government cannot claim to be blind to these issues. Treasury released draft legislation in December 2011 with submissions closing on 13 January 2012. Submissions to the Treasury raised a number of issues relating to the scale of fund requirements, including that the comparison with other funds would lead to a focus on short-term returns. Other concerns of industry participants included that the scale test could become a de facto test of investment outcomes and that there was uncertainty about terms such as 'promote' and 'financial interests'. Predictably, the government failed to resolve these issues in their exposure draft. This is yet another example of Labor pretending to consult, but not listening to the people they expect a opinion from.

I indicate to the House that I will be moving an amendment to remove sections 29VN(b) and (c), which impose the flawed scale test. If our amendment to remove sections 29VN(b) and (c) is successful, we will not oppose the bill in the House.

The coalition have supported 86 per cent of all the bills that have been through this place in this parliamentary term—86 per cent of the bills, and they like to portray us as negative. It seems to be the government that is negative.

Comments

No comments