Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the government amendments on sheets PM122 and QJ145 together and table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments moved to this bill:

PM122—T reasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021

(1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 14), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 November 2021".

(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 15), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 November 2021".

(3) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 26), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 November 2021".

(4) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (lines 31 and 32), omit "are met for that class of Part 6A product", substitute "for that class of Part 6A product are met for the Part 6A product".

We also oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

(5) Schedule 3, item 3, page 29 (lines 8 to 10), to be opposed.

QJ145—T reasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021

(3) Schedule 3, item 20, page 32 (lines 17 and 18), omit subsection 220A(3).

We also oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 3, item 10, page 30 (lines 17 to 19), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 3, item 14, page 31 (lines 7 to 9), to be opposed.

The CHAIR: Even though the minister has moved these together, they need to be split because they have different outcomes. I will put the question that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet PM122 be agreed to:

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: The question now is that amendment (5) on sheet PM122—that item (3) of schedule 3 stand as printed—be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: I'm now going to put amendments (1) and (2) on sheet QJ145. The question is that items 10 and 14 of schedule 3 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: I'm now going to put the last of those amendments moved by the minister by leave, and that is amendment (3) on sheet QJ145. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendment (1):

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item.

I also oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 3, page 29 (line 1) to page 34 (line 17), to be opposed.

I know that the government's amendments that have just passed have removed some of the offensive parts of schedule 3. These amendments seek to remove the entirety of schedule 3.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1269 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 14), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 15), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(3) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 26), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(4) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (after line 1), after paragraph 60B(a), insert:

(aa) a choice product; or

(5) Schedule 2, item 9, page 18 (after line 9), after subsection 60D(2), insert:

(2A) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must specify requirements that ensure that administration fees and expenses are taken into account in assessing the performance of Part 6A products and in comparing and benchmarking performance.

(6) Schedule 2, item 9, page 26 (lines 18 and 19), omit ", to the extent that it relates to Part 6A products that are MySuper products,".

(7) Schedule 2, item 10, page 27 (lines 3 to 9), omit subitem (1), substitute:

(1) Subject to subitem (2), the amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to Part 6A products on and after 1 July 2023.

These amendments seek to delay the stapling until 1 July 2022. They also seek to include choice products in the performance test, because they are currently not in the performance test. They include administrative fees in the performance test. They also delay the performance testing commencing until 1 July 2023.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendments to schedule 1 that delay the start date of the stapling reforms by 12 months to 1 July 2022 as put forward by Senator Patrick will be opposed by the government. The amendments to schedule 2 to increase the coverage of the performance test in the YourSuper comparison tool to choice products and mandate the inclusion of administrative fees as part of the performance test and methodology also delay schedule 2 so that the performance test will commence for all products on 1 July 2023. Delaying schedule 1 by even one year means that more unintended multiple accounts will be created in the additional year, which will have a significantly detrimental impact on people's retirement savings. Members' retirement savings will be boosted if action is taken as soon as possible.

On the issue of underperformance and coverage, the performance test isn't relevant for products in which the members themselves select their investment. Further, retirement products have much broader goals, such as income stability and flexibility, as well as longevity risk management. Expanding the coverage of the YourSuper comparison tool will severely diminish the usability of the tool.

On the issue of underperformance of administrative fees, the bill as drafted doesn't preclude the inclusion of administrative fees. Specifying that the regulations must include administrative fees in the methodology would limit the scope for flexibility to respond to changes in the future. On the issue of underperformance and delay, delaying schedule 2 would also delay the commencement of the YourSuper comparison tool and mean that members will remain in underperforming products for an additional year.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to check with the minister, because I know there are some other senators who are a little bit confused about this: can you confirm at this point in time that the current bill leaves some funds that are not subject to the performance test?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the government announced the Your Future, Your Super policy back in October 2020, we set out a path for the extension of the MySuper products in the first interest to include trustee directed products from 1 July 2022, with an intent to expand to other investment options over time. The Treasury estimates that the performance test will cover 90 per cent of APRA regulated accumulation assets from 1 July 2022. Delivering on the intent to further extend the reach of the underperformance test, the government has tasked Treasury with undertaking a consultation process by 1 July 2022 to consider how best to expand the annual performance test to other superannuation products, and that includes non-trustee directed products and retirement phase products. So this will ensure that the performance test continues to have appropriate coverage.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting Senator Patrick's amendment. Let's be really clear about the advice that's just been provided by the minister in response to this suggestion. The minister is confirming that the war on industry super continues. The minister is confirming that the government's endless ideological preference for paying a lot of attention to those funds which the PC and Commissioner Hayne said perform quite well for members will continue, but no attention will be paid to the for-profit funds where the PC and Commissioner Hayne found a lot of problems. That's the problem with this bill. It is a bill that is incredibly partisan in its nature. It's a bill that refuses to engage with the evidence about actual performance in the system. Everybody wants a high-performing system. Everybody thinks that, when a worker is putting money into a superannuation fund, it should be a high-performing fund. It's not what this bill delivers. This bill delivers a lot of scrutiny for the funds that do quite well and no scrutiny at all, for a very long time, for funds that have been shown again and again and again to be ripping off members. It's pathetic.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask the minister a question on the factors. Isn't there an eight-year review period during which these funds are reviewed and looked at on a performance basis and, if they're not performing, they will be adhered to by this legislation?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Hanson, that's correct. The performance test, or the underperformance test, will apply to eight years of performance of funds, and that includes both investment and administrative fees. If a fund hasn't performed—if it hasn't lived up to its expectations or what was written on the box isn't what is being delivered to members—then that fund will have to write to members and tell them that it has underperformed, and not only that but members also will be directed to that online comparison tool so they can be given a nudge, essentially, to find a product that might be better suited to them. If a fund underperforms two years in a row—and we're talking 50 basis points below its own benchmark on a rolling eight-year average—then it won't be allowed to accept new members. Existing members can stay there, but new members can't join. The government believes that this is a very reasonable underperformance test and will sift out those that are good at what they do and those that aren't good at what they do—those that are delivering to their members and those that aren't delivering to their members and are hiding behind the skirts of those funds that are performing.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Therefore, I want to ask you a question. If they're underperforming, the fact is that they're not returning high returns to their customers. Basically, could they then reflect on the amount of fees that they're charging their customers and possibly reduce the fees to the customers to give them a better return on their funds? Is that a possibility?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, that's exactly what they can do. In fact, this underperformance test will put a competitive pressure onto funds to reduce their fees, particularly those that have been close to that underperformance benchmark for some time. They will be encouraged to reduce their fees in order to make that underperformance hurdle.

The CHAIR: I'm just going to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the calling of the result in relation to Senator Patrick's amendment on sheet 1321, which was that schedule 3 stand as printed, may not have reflected the will of the chamber. It's not unusual that, when we have the 'stand as printed' question, sometimes there's a little confusion in the resolution or application of that. Can I request that that question be put again, please, Chair?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some questions for Senator Birmingham about his actual request. But, procedurally, can I clarify whether it's possible for Senator Birmingham to make this request at a time when Senator Patrick has another matter before the chair?

The CHAIR: We should really deal with the amendments before the chair, but Minister Birmingham has alerted us to the fact that the vote needs to be put again. So I'm in the hands of the Senate. Senator Patrick.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I just want to get confirmation about the statement you made about the monitoring of the performance of funds and the notification that members get. I understand that only applied to approximately 90 per cent of the funds. I think that was the number that you used. So there are 10 per cent of funds to which that regime does not apply. Is that correct?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, that is correct but only for the moment. The government has flagged its intention to extend the performance test to all products in the market and, in fact, has tasked Treasury with undertaking a consultation process by 1 July 2022 to consider how best to do that, because the data does not exist that will allow us to do that right now.

The most important thing, though, is that the underperformance test applies to MySuper products, to default products, those products that people go into unwittingly and languish in for years unwittingly, particularly if those funds are underperforming. It will also apply from 1 July 2022 to trustee directed products, those multi-asset class products where the trustee is the one that decides what the asset mix is going to be. The vast majority of products that remain are single-asset class products. They are very small in size and they tend to be products that people have gone into on an advised basis. Moreover, they tend to be products that people have gone into as part of a portfolio mix, where you don't put all your money into one gold fund and, if that one gold fund underperforms, it really doesn't make a difference because you've got an equity fund as well—an international equity fund, an Australian equity or an Australian bond fund—and you've done your own diversification. Most of the people in those funds are advised, and that's why they're in there.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am conscious that we are moving rapidly towards the cut-off. I do have a question for Senator Birmingham. In his request that the chamber consider recommitting Senator Patrick's amendment on sheet 1321, the minister indicated that the call had been wrong. Can I just seek clarification? It's not my understanding that the call was wrong; it's my understanding that Minister Hume voted the wrong way, which I would observe is a continuation of a debacle of a process throughout the entirety of the morning.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, as I acknowledged, it's not unusual, particularly in relation to the 'stand as printed' questions, when there is movement of questions going backwards and forwards, that senators—as I have seen over the years from all sides—have at times needed to request that a question be re-put as a result of the fact that they are opposing an amendment that is being put but, to oppose the amendment, they need to vote in the affirmative. That is a quirk of Senate practice. The Senate has long acknowledged that it doesn't make legislation by misadventure, that it reflects the will accurately of the chamber. That is why I make the request for that to be recommitted in relation to that question. But it is not unusual, Senator.

The CHAIR: I think the minister is going to seek leave for the question to be re-put at an appropriate time.

I so do; thank you, Chair.

Leave granted.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This speech is only a few seconds long. It's with regard to stapling. I want to draw attention to how in 2013 the Labor Party voted for a cap from $25,000 to $35,000 for those people aged 50 years and over. These are the battlers of Australia. Those people couldn't afford that extra $10,000 a year to go into their super. Ten thousand dollars a year for those 50—

The CHAIR: It being 11:45, we now put the question pursuant to the orders. The question is that amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1269 moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm now going to re-put Senator Patrick's amendment (2) on sheet 1321. The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition, so that's sheets 1308, 1320, 1323 and 1324. The question is that items 3, 5, 10, 14, 20, 22 and subsection 34(2B) in item 6 of schedule 3 stand as printed.

The opposition opposed items 3, 5, 10, 14, 20, 22 and subsection 34(2B) in item 6 of schedule 3 in the following terms—

SHEET 1308

(19) Schedule 3, item 6, page 30 (line 1), subsection 34(2B) to be opposed.

(20) Schedule 3, item 20, page 31 (line 26) to page 32 (line 18), to be opposed.

(21) Schedule 3, item 22, page 33 (lines 22 to 28), to be opposed.

SHEET 1324

(1) Schedule 3, item 3, page 29 (lines 8 to 10), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 3, item 10, page 30 (lines 17 to 19), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 3, item 14, page 31 (lines 7 to 9), to be opposed.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the remaining amendments on sheet 1308 and the amendments on sheets 1320 and 1323, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.

Opposition circulated amendments—

SHEET 1308

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 5), insert:

emergency services worker has the same meaning as in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

excluded occupation: see subsection 32S(1).

front-line health worker: see subsection 32S(2).

health professional means a person who, under a law of a State or Territory, is registered or licensed as a member of any health profession.

(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 14), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(3) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 15), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 8 (lines 19 to 22), omit section 32Q, substitute:

32Q What is the stapled fund for an employee

A fund is the stapled fund, for an employee at a particular time in a financial year, if all of the following requirements are met at that time:

(a) the employee is not employed in an excluded occupation;

(b) APRA has made a determination under section 60C of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 in relation to the previous financial year for each Part 6A product (within the meaning of that Act) that, at that time, is:

(i) offered by the fund; and

(ii) held by the employee;

(c) the determination is that the requirements of subsection 60D(1) of that Act are met in relation to that previous financial year for each of those products;

(d) any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section are met in relation to the fund.

(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 9 (after line 22), at the end of section 32R, add:

(4) Without limiting subsection (3), the Commissioner must, under that subsection, change an earlier notification given in relation to the employee if:

(a) the earlier notification was that the Commissioner was satisfied that there was a stapled fund for the employee; and

(b) because of a notification given to the Commissioner by APRA under section 60CA of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the Commissioner is no longer satisfied that the fund is a stapled fund for the employee.

(6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 9 (after line 22), at the end of Division 7, add:

32S Excluded occupations

(1) An employee is employed in an excluded occupation if the employee is employed:

(a) in an occupation that the Australian Government Actuary has certified:

(i) based on rates of death, or death and total and permanent disability; and

(ii) using information from the most recent 5 years in relation to Australian occupations;

is in the riskiest quintile of Australian occupations; or

(b) as an emergency services worker; or

(c) as a front-line health worker.

Meaning of front-line health worker

(2) A person is employed as a front-line health worker if:

(a) the person is employed as health professional; or

(b) the person is employed for the purposes of providing supports or services to people with disability under the National Disability Insurance Scheme; or

(c) the person's principal place of work is:

(i) a hospital; or

(ii) a surgery; or

(iii) a health clinic; or

(iv) a residential aged care facility; or

(v) the place of business of another business that provides health or disability services.

(7) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 26), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(8) Schedule 2, item 5, page 15 (after line 2), insert:

defined benefit interest has the meaning given by the regulations.

(9) Schedule 2, item 9, page 16 (line 30) to page 17 (line 4), omit section 60B, substitute:

60B Meaning of Part 6A product

A Part 6A product is any class of beneficial interest in a regulated superannuation fund, other than a defined benefit interest.

(10) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (after line 23), after section 60C, insert:

60CA APRA to notify Commissioner of Taxation of fail assessment

(1) This section applies if:

(a) APRA gives the trustee or trustees of an entity a notification of a determination under subsection 60C(2); and

(b) the determination is that the requirement in subsection 60D(1) has not been met, for a Part 6A product offered by the entity, in relation to a financial year.

(2) APRA must notify the Commissioner of Taxation in writing of the fact mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) of this section.

(11) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (line 25) to page 18 (line 3), omit subsection 60D(1), substitute:

Meeting requirements specified in regulations

(1) The requirement in this subsection is met for a Part 6A product in relation to a financial year if:

(a) the regulations specify requirements, for the purposes of this subsection, in relation to a class of Part 6A products that include that Part 6A product; and

(b) those requirements are met for that Part 6A product in relation to the financial year.

(12) Schedule 2, item 9, page 18 (after line 9), after subsection 60D(2), insert:

(2A) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must specify requirements that ensure that, for annual performance assessments conducted under this Part, the assessment of the past performance of a Part 6A product offered by a fund covers the shorter of the following periods:

(a) the period of 10 years; or

(b) the period for which the performance of the Part 6A product offered by a fund can be assessed, including any period where a product, that was the direct predecessor of the Part 6A product, was offered by the fund.

(13) Schedule 2, item 9, page 18 (line 11), omit fees and/or.

(14) Schedule 2, item 9, page 20 (after line 12), at the end of section 60D, add:

Fees

(14) Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to the impact of fees on Part 6A products.

(15) The investment returns mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) must be net of fees.

(15) Schedule 2, item 9, page 26 (after line 16), after subsection 60J(3), insert:

(3A) Methods under paragraph (1)(a) must include methods for ranking Part 6A products according to long-term investment returns.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), long-term means 10 years or longer.

(16) Schedule 2, item 10, page 27 (lines 6 to 8), omit "identified by regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 60B(b) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993".

(17) Schedule 3, item 5, page 29 (lines 11 to 15), to be opposed.

(18) Schedule 3, item 6, page 29 (after line 23), after subsection 34(2A), insert:

(2AA) Subsection (2A) does not apply to the extent that the standards relate to keeping or retaining records in relation to a non-material matter.

(2AB) For the purposes of subsection (2AA), a non-material matter includes a payment or investment made:

(a) by or on behalf of the superannuation entity; and

(b) that a reasonable person would not expect to impact materially the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity.

SHEET 1320

(1) Schedule 3, item 11, page 30 (after line 26), after subsection 52(3A), insert:

Payments and arrangements to which best financial interests obligations apply

(3B) Without limiting paragraph (2)(c), the obligations of the trustee under that paragraph apply in relation to the following payments made, or arrangements entered into, by or on behalf of the entity:

(a) a payment to the trustee from the assets of the entity;

(b) an arrangement between the trustee, or a connected entity of the trustee, and a third party (including a connected entity of the trustee) that is an arrangement relating wholly or partly to the entity;

(c) a payment to a third party by or on behalf of the trustee, or a connected entity of the trustee, that is a payment relating wholly or partly to the entity.

(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B):

(a) a payment includes:

(i) a payment in the form of a fee, charge, remuneration, dividend, expense, reimbursement or indemnity; and

(ii) a payment to an adviser, agent, delegate, custodian, administrator, manager or other appointee of the trustee or entity; and

(iii) a payment authorised by a beneficiary; and

(b) an arrangement includes:

(i) an arrangement to provide insured benefits in respect of beneficiaries; and

(ii) an arrangement to provide services to, or on behalf of, the trustee in relation to the entity; and

(iii) an arrangement for the payment of amounts out of the assets of the entity to any other party.

(2) Schedule 3, item 15, page 31 (after line 16), after subsection 52A(2A), insert:

Payments and arrangements to which best financial interests obligations apply

(2B) Without limiting paragraph (2)(c), the obligations of the director under that paragraph apply in relation to the following payments made, or arrangements entered into, by or on behalf of the corporate trustee or the entity:

(a) a payment to the director or the corporate trustee from the assets of the entity;

(b) an arrangement between the director or the corporate trustee (or an associate of the director or corporate trustee) and a third party that is an arrangement relating wholly or partly to the entity;

(c) a payment to a third party by or on behalf of the director or the corporate trustee (or an associate of the director or corporate trustee), that is a payment relating wholly or partly to the entity.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2B):

(a) a payment includes:

(i) a payment in the form of a fee, charge, remuneration, dividend, expense, reimbursement or indemnity; and

(ii) a payment to an adviser, agent, delegate, custodian, administrator, manager or other appointee of the director, corporate trustee or entity; and

(iii) a payment authorised by a beneficiary; and

(b) an arrangement includes:

(i) an arrangement to provide insured benefits in respect of beneficiaries; and

(ii) an arrangement to provide services to, or on behalf of, the director or corporate trustee in relation to the entity; and

(iii) an arrangement for the payment of amounts out of the assets of the entity to any other party.

SHEET 1323

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 and 3), omit the table items, substitute:

2. Schedule 1      1 July 2022.   1 July 2022

3. Schedule 2,

Parts 1 and 2         1 July 2022.   1 July 2022

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item, substitute:

6. Schedule 3      1 July 2022.   1 July 2022

(3) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 14), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(4) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 15), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(5) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 26), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".

(6) Schedule 2, item 10, page 27 (lines 3 to 9), omit subitem (1), substitute:

(1) Subject to subitem (2), the amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to Part 6A products on and after 1 July 2022.

(7) Schedule 3, item 24, page 34 (line 15), omit "31 December 2021", substitute "31 December 2022".

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments on sheet 1218 revised, as circulated by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.

Senator Patrick's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 8 (lines 19 to 22), omit section 32Q, substitute:

32Q What is the stapled fund for an employee

(1) A fund is the stapled fund for an employee at a particular time, if at that time:

(a) the employee is not employed in a dangerous occupation; and

(b) no fail assessments have been given in the previous 12 months in relation to any Part 6A products offered by the fund and held by the employee; and

(c) the requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section are met.

(2) In this section:

dangerous occupation means an occupation:

(a) that the Australian Government Actuary has certified that:

  (i) based on rates of death, or death and total and permanent disability; and

  (ii) using information from the most recent 5 years in relation to Australian occupations;

is in the riskiest quintile of Australian occupations; or

(b) as an emergency services worker (as defined for the purposes of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011).

fail assessment, in relation to a Part 6A product offered by a fund, means a notification:

(a) given by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to the Commissioner under subsection 60C(3) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993; and

(b) of a determination that the requirement in subsection 60D(1) of that Act has not been met for the Part 6A product offered by the fund.

Part 6A product has the same meaning as in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.

(2) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (line 12), after "APRA must give", insert "the Commissioner of Taxation and".

(3) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 26 (after line 33), at the end of the Part, add:

Taxation Administration Act 1953

9A Paragraph 390 -5(9) (b) of Schedule 1

After "the *value", insert "and class".