Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are dealing with the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 and associated bills. They represent some minor ad hoc changes, but, to the extent that they are regulatory reforms that reduce in a small way the red-tape burden facing Australian consumers and Australian business, particularly financial services business, Labor supports them. I would emphasise that these additional red-tape requirements on business were introduced by this government, and it is in the process of rolling them back. So Labor will support the package without amendment. The package includes changes to corporations regulation in the area of financial services, company reporting obligations, auditor independence, corporate governance, fundraising, takeovers and compliance and some other initiatives.

This bill will reduce some of the regulatory burden on providers of financial services. It will increase access to financial advice in some limited areas and will make improvements to other aspects of the financial services regulatory framework. The changes include removing the need for the provision of a statement of advice, the so-called SOA, when there is no recommendation in relation to a particular financial product and no remuneration and, secondly, where the amount to which the advice relates is under the prescribed threshold, proposed to be $15,000. In relation to superannuation, this will be limited to consolidation into or supplementation of an existing account; refining the circumstances where a financial services guide is not required to be provided, particularly at seminars; and some other measures in respect of the disclosure documentation issued under the Financial Services Reform Act.

This is the major area of contention in our financial services sector. What we have seen in the last three years is the issuing of disclosure documents by financial services institutions that vary in size but are generally from 50 to 100 pages. They are costly, complex and unreadable for most consumers. In addition, they have imposed an estimated additional cost, which is inevitably passed on to consumers, of some $200 million. I have been a longstanding critic of this approach. The Liberal government philosophy of protecting consumers is based on two approaches: firstly, you disclose in order to protect; and, secondly, you educate consumers. I must say that I am a sceptic of this approach. The one thing I can say is that there is overwhelming agreement in the financial services industry that the document being issued is a total dud when it comes to informing consumers. Only this government could believe that consumers would be informed by a 50- to 100-page document, and only this government could believe that that will protect consumers. That is why it is a total dud. It is on the record that the Labor Party has constantly outlined its concerns about this approach. It does not work.

Labor have announced policy that we intend to go through with, and we will apply the chainsaw to this disclosure documentation. Labor have announced policy that we will introduce in simple, standard, readable base documents incorporated in regulation of no more than three to four pages. If consumers, by request, wish to receive the more complex documents, that option will be available to them. What is the sense of issuing complex documents when consumers generally find them very difficult to read? They do not provide protection in any sense.

The measures in the bill represent the second attempt—so-called ‘refinements’. You always know when the government have got it wrong—they announce a ‘refinement’; refine this, refine that. They do not want to admit they got it wrong, so they issue a set of refinements. This is the second lot of refinements, and there are more coming. It is a piecemeal approach to attempt to improve the disclosure regime. The measures in the bill represent a partial reduction on the expansion of the lengthy documentation under this Liberal government. Labor support the measures as far as they go, but we will be much tougher in terms of a reduction in these basic documents.

What is concerning about the reforms is that the government appears to regard them as a stopgap measure. Why is it taking this approach? Well, we are only a few months out from the election. The government at least has received the signals loud and clear from consumer organisations and the financial services sector that these documents are doing more harm than good, so it has rushed in with a piecemeal set of measures—and there are more on the way—so as to be seen to be doing something, anything, about the problem. I do read the press releases of the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the parliamentary secretary. I must say I gave a wry smile when I read the heading of the parliamentary secretary’s press release in respect of this set of legislation. It read: ‘Pearce delivers consumer benefits and drives reduction in red tape’ and ‘Pearce continues delivering reductions in the red-tape burden’. It is a red-tape burden that this government introduced, and it is rolling it back in some limited ways.

My trusty adviser has just brought into the chamber a copy of these product disclosure documents. This one is typical of a product disclosure document in the area of financial services that is given to consumers. It is just incredible. This product disclosure statement is 74 pages long, and this is pretty typical of what consumers are being issued with. They are supposed to read and understand these statements to make an informed decision about financial services. This is the basis of the protection of consumers in our financial system. I certainly cannot understand a lot of the material in this particular document, and I do follow these issues a little more than most. Yet this is the sort of document presented. Here is another one which we have printed off the web. This one is 57 pages long. When you read these documents and attempt to understand them you ask: how on earth can the average consumer understand this sort of material?

We have the parliamentary secretary putting out a press release with the heading ‘Pearce delivers major insolvency law reform’. The government are partially correcting a red-tape burden of their own creation. They were warned. They were not just warned by me three or four years ago when we started to see these documents; they have been warned by the industry and by consumer groups that these documents are not providing the fundamental protection that is required. The parliamentary secretary talked about these so-called achievements, as represented by legislation, in his press release. Every time we get a new parliamentary secretary or assistant treasurer we get another set of refinements and another set of claims about reducing red tape.

The legislation we are considering was considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. We had some seven or eight financial services organisations attend that committee hearing. What is clear from the submission presented by the Treasury, for example, is that this is a very ad hoc approach because there are further changes to come. I do not believe that they will address the problem, but there are a few further changes to come. So we are going to get yet another set of legislative changes sometime in the future—if the government is re-elected then it will probably be in the early part of next year—to again try to deal with some of these regulatory red-tape issues. So what will happen, of course, is that the legislation we are dealing with will pass the Senate and new regulations will be issued. Compliance officer is probably the fastest-growing occupation in the financial services sector at the moment. And is it any wonder? The compliance officers in financial institutions will get the regulations in the new legislation and they will adjust their processes. They will study what is required in the law and they will print new forms and new information. Then they will have to do it all over again next year when they get yet another set of so-called refinements. Treasury will be finalising some consultations in some other areas that are not dealt with in this particular legislation. In terms of the proposals presented here, as far as they go they seem okay.

We had the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, IFSA and the Australian Bankers Association appear at the committee inquiry. When those various financial services organisations were questioned they all made the point that they believed this would increase efficiency and reduce red tape. That is a great claim to make, and it is generally correct. I then asked them: in what way would it reduce cost? I asked that because it is the increasing cost of this ineffective disclosure regime that we should be particularly concerned about. They were not able to identify any specific cost reductions even though they believed there would be greater efficiency and less paperwork. I also pressed them on the question of whether it would reduce price—because, at the end of the day, we have in some sections of our financial services sector very costly areas of operation.

What Labor wants to see is not only an improvement in efficiency and a reduction in cost but also a reduction in price to the consumer. I was disappointed that the representatives of industry, whom I have great respect for and whom I have worked with over many years, were unable to give an assurance that the cost to the consumer would decrease. If you argue that the bills represent increased efficiency and that there will be a reduction in cost then logically there should be a reduction in price for the Australian consumer. That assurance was not forthcoming. As I say, in general the bills do represent some progress toward simplifying some elements of our complex financial regulatory system.

There is one area in which I was particularly disappointed that greater work had not been done, and that is the provision of what is called limited advice within a product. If a consumer seeks advice about one aspect of a particular financial product, it is difficult under the Financial Services Reform Act to provide that without the issuing of lengthy, complex documents. I think much greater work could have been done in this area of provision of limited advice, rather than having a system that effectively forces the issuing of extraordinarily complex documents. In some ways this forces overservicing. For example, a person may simply want advice about their level of life insurance or death and disability insurance. I can compare this to going to a doctor for a particular ailment—it might be a cold—and the law effectively forcing the medical practitioner to give you a total health check and a range of prescriptions for everything that may go wrong in your entire life insofar as your health is concerned. You have actually gone there just to get some medical advice and treatment for your cold or flu. That is what we have ended up with in financial services in this country. As I have indicated, the Treasury submission indicates that there will be further piecemeal reform. Another example is that the Treasury were unable to come to a conclusion around the matter of sales recommendation. The Treasury submission itself says, ‘This matter will be the subject of ongoing development for possible inclusion in a future legislative vehicle.’

Another issue that I think concerned all members of the committee, and certainly concerned Labor, was that the regulations were not available. There are some important issues around consumer protection that we have been assured will be included in the regulations. Section 947D, we understand, will be provided for in the regulations to ensure that we do not have abuse of some of the changes that are being proposed. But those regulations are not available. This is particularly important when it comes to ensuring ongoing surveillance of, response to and corrective action for what is known as mis-selling. We understand that section 947D will be maintained, but we do not have the regulations. They have not been issued and yet they contain critical elements of this reform package. It is disturbing that after three years of operation of financial services reform these documents are still lengthy, complex and often unreadable.

There is another issue that astounds me. I asked Treasury whether they had undertaken any consumer testing of the impact of the simplifications that will flow from the legislation. Treasury have done no consumer testing. It seems to me to be fundamental that if you are trying to simplify documents giving advice to consumers you should ask consumers about what will work and what will be readable. Treasury have not done any of this to date. But Treasury are not the only ones who have done no consumer testing. ASIC is the regulator that oversees consumer protection in this area and, when it started issuing its advice to industry on these disclosure documents, it did no consumer testing. It just beggars belief that if you were to road test a disclosure regime you would not do consumer testing to help you to understand what it is that consumers will read and understand. I have been on the record constantly warning about the difficulties that this approach represents.

The last literacy survey that I read indicated that about 15 per cent of Australians are functionally illiterate. I understand the definition of that is that they are not able to read road maps or read through a telephone book. That is a lot of Australians who are functionally illiterate, let alone financially literate, meaning that they can read and understand financial documents. I am therefore an extreme sceptic about the other approach of this government towards the education of consumers. How do you educate 10 million Australians to be financially literate when about 15 per cent are functionally illiterate to start with? Educating so many people is a huge job. Try it, by any means, and we will certainly get increased financial literacy. But let us not believe that Australian consumers, through an education program and a disclosure program—particularly the one we have got—would be informed generally and would be able to make informed decisions around financial services. Generally, they will not be able to.

One of the other difficulties with these disclosure documents is that there is no uniformity. Everything that you would want to know is there. But if the economic theory of competition is that people will read and compare different disclosure documents and then come to an informed choice—and from that, prices will be driven down—it will not happen unless you have comparable documents. I do not blame the industry. And I do not blame the lawyers because they will only do what they are paid to do, and that is to cover all the eventualities—to cross the t’s and dot the i’s. It is not their fault. This is a fundamental failure of this government to understand the difficulties of consumer protection based on these particular documents and based on an approach for education. I do not blame the public servants. I have given Treasury a bit of a touch-up, but at the end of the day it is the government’s philosophical approach and lack of practicality that have led us to end up with a great mess. If you ask the victims of Westpoint and Fincorp whether they read the debenture disclosure documents, very few of them will say that they did. Even the new head of ASIC, the regulator, could not understand the documents. (Time expired)

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 contains amendments that simplify and streamline Australia’s corporate and financial services regulation, company reporting obligations, auditor independence, corporate governance, fundraising, takeovers and compliance. The bill implements the government’s response to several recommendations made in the Re-thinking regulation report of the task force on reducing the regulatory burden on business relevant to corporate and financial services regulation. It also amends various provisions of the Corporations Act and related acts to improve the efficiency of corporate and financial services regulation, based on the proposals outlined in the Corporate and Financial Services Regulation Review proposals paper of November 2006. It also makes various minor and technical amendments to the Corporations Act and related acts. The Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2007 and the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2007 are supporting bills that make amendments about chargeable matters in support of some measures in the main bill. They also contain a measure to introduce a facility for up-front payment of annual review fees, which is a good initiative. The main Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 contains several schedules that make significant amendments to the Corporations Law. These amendments have by and large been the subject of extensive consultation procedures.

Tonight, I will only be dealing with the schedules which have been the subject of submissions and evidence to the statutory Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, on which both the shadow minister who just spoke, Senator Sherry, and I sit. These changes to financial services regulations were originally flagged in the Corporate and Financial Services Regulation Review consultation paper and in further consultation in the Corporate and Financial Services Regulation Review proposals paper.

The amendments contained in this bill exempt a financial adviser from giving a statement of advice for investments of less than $15,000. However, advisers would still be required to provide a record of advice which sets out key information about conflicts of interest and whether they receive remuneration for the advice given. This proposal is seen as necessary because financial advisers were avoiding giving advice to smaller investors because of the expense of providing a statement of advice. On initial perusal the relevant amendment appears to be benign, and it certainly appears from the majority of the submissions to the committee that it is more than acceptable to the financial services industry that there be a threshold of $15,000, although the Australian Bankers Association and the Financial Planning Association want that threshold increased to $25,000.

There were submissions, especially from those involved in the superannuation industry, which piqued my interest. These submissions looked in detail at the implications of the amendments, especially for small, unsophisticated investors with superannuation funds to invest. The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees made a significant submission to the committee and, as they point out, regulation of the financial services sector has two aspects: consumer protection and market integrity. It seems to me that in the wake of the Westpoint, Fincorp and ACR collapses we need to be very careful in introducing measures that might have the unintended consequence of lessening protection for mum and dad investors, particularly where they are unsophisticated investors. Although $15,000 may seem like a relatively small amount of money, if someone seeks advice on how to invest $10,000 on several different occasions and they are advised always to invest in, say, ACR, that could add up to a substantial amount in the end.

I do note that the report of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services states at paragraph 3.17:

While a number of submitters considered the possible utility of anti-avoidance provisions in relation to the threshold, Treasury officials submitted that they could see no clear way for the threshold to be abused without the knowledge and consent of the client.

And there’s the rub. Unsophisticated investors may be complicit in this situation, foolishly waiving their rights. In those circumstances, with the passage of this legislation, the adviser is not required to provide a statement of advice as to why they keep recommending that particular financial product to that particular customer. I concede that in those circumstances a record of advice must be given. However, it is my understanding from the committee hearing that these are less substantial documents and exactly what is required to be contained in them has not been finalised in the regulations. I would have preferred an outright prohibition of aggregating advice occasions below the threshold.

Several of those giving evidence to the committee wanted the definition of the proposed threshold clarified, in particular in relation to superannuation advice, which has the possibility of exceeding the threshold over time. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia was not alone in expressing confusion about the definition. As pointed out in the committee’s report, the Australian Bankers Association stated:

It is unclear how future investments will be treated. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the threshold will relate to the value that the initial investment and the future amounts anticipated to be reached in the next 12 months.

…         …         …

We suggest that the amendment be clarified so that the threshold relates to an acquisition or disposal in a 12 month period.

The grammar used there is not very good, so I stress that that was a quote.

Others giving evidence to the committee were of the opinion that a clarity of definition, as much as the actual numerical figure, was important. The Industry Super Network said that they agreed with the objective of increasing access to advice for small-scale investors, but, as noted in the report, they stated:

... in order to ensure that the reforms achieve this end without unintended side effects we would urge the Committee to ensure that the $15, 000 threshold is well defined so that the total amount under advice does not exceed this threshold.

The Industry Super Network also advocated a reduction of the proposed threshold because the increased limit had been arrived at without sufficient consultation. It did appear to a number of witnesses that the amount of the threshold was based more on what the financial break-even point for financial advisers was in giving advice rather than the amount relevant to consumers. As pointed out in the committee report:

The Financial Planning Association supported the move to grant relief from the need to provide extensive disclosure, and like the ABA, called for the proposed threshold to be raised to $25,000, and for advisers to be able to access the exemption even when being remunerated. IFSA took a similar view, arguing that the calculations undertaken by Treasury as to the ‘break even’ point for advisers were inaccurate.

According to the FPA, there is only a minority of unscrupulous financial advisers in the industry, and I do know that the FPA is working hard to ensure that the number is reduced further. The anecdotal evidence is that, although they might be a minority, there are an awful lot of them. However, as the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees pointed out in its submission:

The industry keeps seeing mis-selling of products, resulting in tens of thousands of Australians losing millions of dollars in the process, due to these unconscionable and unscrupulous advisers, even if they are in the minority.

The statement of advice is a powerful tool both for ongoing use by the investor and as a way in which good quality advisers can set out the reasons for their advice. This can act as a protection for them and as a tool for ASIC when they are pursuing financial advisers over poor or conflicted advice.

From the evidence provided to the committee, the late inclusion of superannuation came as a surprise to several of the witnesses. According to the committee report, the organisation Choice opposed the late inclusion of superannuation:

Compulsory superannuation is deferred earnings designed to fund future retirement. It is a long-term public policy measure and the potential for inappropriate advice or mis-selling is obvious.

According to the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, it is not necessarily simple to identify which fund is the best for the client:

Matters like the existence of severe penalties to withdraw from many of the funds provided by financial institutions, the availability and value of life/total and permanent disablement/income continuance insurance arrangements, and the willingness of a current employer to contribute to the selected fund, can all influence a decision that would otherwise be made on the basis of fees or investment returns alone.

The AIST referred to the fact superannuation is compulsory and because of that there should be effective safeguards against uninformed decision making, submitting:

Diminishing disclosure requirements and creating loopholes for the minority of financial advisers who are acting unscrupulously, or in bad faith, does not provide a confident investment environment for consumers to feel that their retirement savings are safe and secure.

AIST indicated that considerable consternation arose as a result of the late inclusion of superannuation in the bill. Several witnesses testified that they were led to believe that it would not appear and that they were surprised when the bill was made public. A lack of consultation was confirmed by Treasury officials when they appeared before the committee. It seems surprising, given that there was good consultation on so many other aspects of the bill, that this important area was overlooked. I agree with the statement from AIST that the purpose of the Corporations Act is not to make business easier for financial advisers, nor to assist them to be commercially viable. The objectives of the financial services act are to maintain market integrity and provide consumer protection. There are dangers that this amendment does not satisfy these criteria.

The AIST also refer to ASIC’s shadow shopping survey on superannuation advice, which found that 16 per cent of advice given by financial advisers was clearly not reasonable and a further three per cent was probably not reasonable. That adds up to one in five. Furthermore, one-third of the advice given to consumers to switch superannuation funds lacked a credible reason and risked leaving the consumer worse off. It was also three to six times more common for unreasonable advice to be given where the adviser had an actual conflict of interest because they were receiving a commission for product recommendations. In 46 per cent of cases, advisers failed to give a written statement of advice where one was required. I know that the government is sensitive to that and I know that ASIC is sensitive to that. I know that the financial world is trying to address those things, but it actually reinforces the point made by the shadow minister that there are still fundamental problems in getting this area right. ASIC obviously has problems with the financial sector and is constantly watchful of it. As AIST say in their submission, recent financial collapses further bolster their point that disclosure requirements should not be diminished, particularly in an environment which, even now, does not protect ordinary Australians and their retirement savings.

I would like to make a remark with respect to the committee’s report. I draw the government’s attention to recommendation 1. It reinforces the strong and accurate remarks made by the shadow minister and a view widely held by members of the coalition and in my own circumstance. The committee has recommended that the government and industry stakeholders consult further and devise ways to reduce the length and complexity of statements of advice and product disclosure statements and make them more readable. We do have a problem that consumers just are not paying any attention to them, and therefore they are ineffective.

With respect to auditor independence, on this particular amendment I would like to thank the government for finally taking up one of my suggestions. The wording is slightly different but the intent is the same. I refer the coalition to the Senate Hansard of 21 June 2004, page 24,316, where I proposed an amendment to the CLERP (Audit Reform of Corporate Disclosure) Bill 2003 which has similar effect to those proposed in your bill. It shows that if you keep putting forward good ideas, perhaps someone in the government will see the sense of it and implement them, so I am grateful to record a small win. I do not have many of those anymore, as you know, so I am glad to have got one.

As we are dealing with amendments to the Corporations Act, I will again move my amendments requiring shareholder approval for companies making political donations. Since I last spoke on this matter on 29 March 2007, I notice that the coalition at large have been attacking the Labor Party and the way it is financed by the union movement. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has been reported as saying that unions do not have the same accountability as corporates. I am not sure that it is true in any respects, but it is certainly not true with respect to political donations. Corporations are not required to obtain shareholder approval before they make donations to a political party in just the same way as unions are not required to get the say-so of their members to use their funds to donate to the Labor Party.

I was interested to read in the Age and the Adelaide Advertiser of 2 June this year that the Liberal Party’s federal treasurer, Mark Bethwaite, was berating companies for making political donations to both the Liberal and the Labor parties. He described this ‘even-handedness’ as something he could not applaud, especially in light of what he said was the ACTU’s practice of ‘gouging’ funds from union members. I disagree with that. Provided companies and unions have their political donations policies approved by shareholders and members respectively, they are entitled to donate to whomever they want. But there again is the rub. They do not have the approval of shareholders and members. It is immoral and improper for companies and unions to donate money to candidates or political parties without their donations policies being approved by shareholders and members respectively.

In that Age report of 2 June, Michelle Grattan wrote of a resolution passed by the Liberal Party Federal Council. It said:

In a resolution passed with the Prime Minister’s support, the council called on the Federal Government to immediately pass legislation requiring unions and employer organisations to obtain the consent of the majority of their members before distributing funds for political purposes.

Note that it has the Prime Minister’s support and, on that basis, I expect us to see legislation. I suppose such legislation will only be introduced after the employer organisations have spent their advertising money on supporting Work Choices. I am pleased to see that the National Farmers Federation have made it clear that that is not going to be their role, and I think they are perfectly entitled either to advertise or not to advertise, and that is their right.

But I am not going to stand by and watch a one-eyed distortion of a fundamental principle that I and the Democrats have been advocating for a decade. Again and again I personally have moved amendments that require companies and unions that donate money to candidates or political parties to have their donations policies approved by shareholders and members respectively. Every single time I have moved those amendments, Labor, the Liberals and The Nationals have voted them down. Here is your chance again. Now that the Liberal federal council has voted for unions and employer organisations to observe the principle that their political donations policies must be approved by members, let us start the ball rolling by insisting that companies that donate money to candidates or political parties must have their donations policies approved by shareholders. The coalition should be willing to lead the way for shareholder approval of political donations since it says it feels so strongly about union members not having their say with respect to political donations.

I have raised this issue many times since 1996. I have moved amendments several times. I drew attention to this matter in my minority report to the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services May 2004 report into CLERP 9. Again, in my supplementary remarks of the September 2005 report of the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters relating thereto I set out the Democrats approach. I said:

The practice of companies making political donations without shareholder approval and without disclosing donations in annual reports must end. So must the practice of unions making political donations without member approval. It is neither democratic nor is it ethical. Shareholders of companies and members of registered organisations (or any other organisational body such as mutuals) should be given the right either to approve a political donations policy, to be carried out by the board or management body, or the right to approve political donations proposals at the annual general meeting. This will require amendments to the relevant acts ...

I also drew attention to the need for disclosure by companies making political donations without shareholder approval and unions making political donations without member approval, and suggested remedies for this, and I refer you to my minority report. The amendments provide for the prohibition of gifts and political donations—and the amendment I refer to is the one to be dealt with in the committee stage—by companies unless the political donation is authorised by a resolution passed at a general meeting by a majority of shareholders of the company or unless the political donation is made in accordance with a shareholder-approved donation policy. It does not seek to prohibit donations; it seeks to require that the shareholders approve the policy under which donations are made. It is their money.

I would like to remind the Senate that in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services which assessed that original CLERP 9 legislation, recommendation 26—which was unanimous—said the following:

The Committee recommends that provisions be inserted in the Corporations Act that would require the annual report of listed companies to include a discussion of the board’s policy on making political donations.

So the relevant committee has taken a stand. To date the government has not taken up that committee recommendation. And like so many other good committee recommendations—many of them unanimous and which I have identified in other speeches previously—too often the coalition chooses to ignore them. It should not. Thank you.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank senators who made a contribution to the debate on the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Simpler Regulatory System) Bill 2007 and supporting bills. The simpler regulatory system bills bring together a number of initiatives in the corporate and financial services fields that will reduce red tape for business while retaining important protections for investors. In developing the bills stakeholders were involved at an early stage. On behalf of the government I would like to thank them for their contributions and for helping to ensure that the initiatives in the bills achieved an important balance between maintaining investor protection and enhancing business productivity.

The inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the package provided an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the details of the bills. The government welcomes the committee’s recommendations that the bills be passed without amendment and particularly thanks the committee members and the committee secretariat for preparing its report in such a timely manner. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.