Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

Contrary to what the minister has just said, the vast majority of people in the industry do not agree with the government, clearly. Minister, if you go through the transcript of all the evidence presented to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, you will see that the overwhelming amount of evidence highlights the issues that I am highlighting in relation to this schedule. I think there are a couple of other interesting points here.

The minister may not know that at the Senate economics committee inquiry hearing the other day, a representative of the Treasury acknowledged—it is in Hansardthat the bill and the approach that the government is taking are less than ideal. There is another question I would like to ask the minister, although he did not answer my first question, but I will have another go: why has the Treasury not made public the submissions to the exposure draft? There have been several submissions provided to the government in relation to the exposure draft and none of the submissions have been made public. There must be a reason why the government would not release the submissions. As it so happens we have obviously received a number of copies of the submission ourselves, so we know what is in the majority of submissions.

I think the problem here is that the minister at the table is refusing to acknowledge not so much what we are saying but what we are saying on behalf of the industry and the concerns that we are expressing about the enormous lack of substance and detail that is in this bill. So, Minister, if the Treasury says that the approach is less than ideal and the government has not released the submissions to the exposure draft, they clearly have not taken on board the comments from the stakeholders in the industry. I would like to ask the minister at the table why it is that he is not open to the opportunity of allowing schedules 1 and 2 to go through, which we think are important and—whilst the intent of schedule 3 is important—allowing some more time so that the government can do the work that is needed, because clearly there is more work to do. The government acknowledges that. There is a lot of work to do in relation to getting the regulations right. The minister knows the impact that that will have on the system. The government has said that they are going to consult on the regulations. So this is nonsense about this bill being urgent—the regulations are most likely months away. It cannot take effect until the regulations are tabled and put into effect. The minister knows that the current ASIC undertaking can continue. The current ASIC undertaking is there. It can continue. He knows that. There is no uncertainty in the marketplace.

Why won’t the government entertain the idea of going back to some of the submissions, going back to the stakeholders, consulting with them and putting the detail that is needed into the bill? Then we can all support a bill that provides clarity and certainty. I am appealing to the minister at the table, who is representing the government on this matter, to consider allowing schedules 1 and 2 to go through. The opposition is giving the government the opportunity to go back and do the work that is needed. We are providing you with that opportunity. I would like to ask the minister why it is that he will not entertain that request.

See this speech in context