Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On the assumption that they pass into being acts. But the proposed sections which I have just mentioned, together with the effect of the amended proposed section 962D, will have the effect that the provisions are not operative with effect from 1 July 2012; they only become operative with effect from 1 July 2013, unless a relevant party lodges a notice saying, in effect, 'We accept the operation of these provisions.' The question I am seeking to get some clarification about from the minister in this consideration in detail phase is: what is the rationale for this legislative scheme? If it is accepted by the minister, as I understand it is, that there is time involved in financial institutions going through the detailed planning work and the detailed information technology implementation work to be able to comply with these new provisions—the minister earlier said that it may well take some of these organisations up until 30 June 2013—and if it is accepted that time will be required by a number of participants in the marketplace then what is unclear is what benefit is served by the minister's complex two-track approach, with the soft start date from 1 July 2012. What is the substantive benefit which is served, other than the immediate specific benefit to the minister of being able to say to the world, 'Look, my package of reforms has taken effect'?

The assessment this House has to make is to weigh up the costs and benefits associated with the amendments which it is presently considering. And it is clear that the cost includes confusion on the part of citizens, and particularly consumers, who are trying to work out the set of obligations which the financial services institution or adviser with which they are dealing is subject to. There is confusion which will be faced by consumers and there will be extra cost and complexity because of this two-tier approach. But what we do not know is the benefit to the broader Australian community, excepting, as I think we all do in this chamber—I think it is uncontentious—that it has career benefits for the minister. But what are the broader policy benefits? That is really the question which the House should be informed of, and that is the question I specifically put to the minister.

See this speech in context