Why is Treasury keeping scores of advice-related submissions unpublished?
The Federal Government has been asked to explain why industry submissions to multiple Treasury consultations impacting financial advisers and superannuation funds have not been made public.
Among the key consultations within which submissions have not been made public are those relating to the so-called ‘experienced pathway’ for financial advisers and, just as importantly, those relating to the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR).
It is now closing in on 12 months since Treasury kicked off the ‘experienced pathway’ submissions and 10 months with respect to the CSLR.
The submissions have remained unpublished despite the Government outlining its proposed approach to both the CSLR and the ‘experienced pathway’, although it is yet to fully outline its revised approach to the superannuation performance test.
The Government has been expressly asked whether the decision not to release the submissions is a result of a decision taken by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers or whether it has been a decision taken by bureaucrats inside Treasury.
Financial advisers have been made aware of the positions adopted by Financial Planning Association (FPA), the Association of Financial Advisers, the Financial Services Council (FSC) who have made the content of their submissions public but they have no visibility with respect to scores of other submissions, particularly around the ‘experienced pathway’ and the funding of the CSLR.
Among the Federal Opposition members of the Senate Economics committee questioning the non-publication of the submissions was the former Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Senator Jane Hume.
In an exchange with the Minister for Finance, Senator Katy Gallagher, it was Hume who asked whether the decision on publication of the submissions reflected the attitude of Treasurer Chalmers or the Treasury.
Other opposition senators argued that the failure on the part of the Government and Treasury to publish the submissions made it difficult for politicians to do their job on key policy issues.
Among the most controversial consultations where submissions have not been made public are:
Financial adviser professional standards – covering the ‘experienced pathway’
Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort
ASIC Industry Funding Model Review
Franked distributions and capital raising
Superannuation Performance Test Treatment of Faith-based Products – Regulations
Treasury consultations initiated under the former Coalition Government also saw delays in submissions being made public.
It’s obviously much harder for Treasury & ASIC to be seen as having total support bias to sectors such as Industry Super Australia, if they publish what is real submissions that go against Treasury & ASIC ideology.
And anything that goes against the total destruction of Real Advisers.
REGULATORY CAPTURE CORRUPTION at its worst, Treasury & ASIC’s unwavering support of ISA and unmitigated Adviser persecution.
Given this happened quite frequently under the former Liberal Govt, the Liberals set the precedent for it going forward
What better way to play into the hands of all the vested interests, banks and union funds especially can hide their requirements for ongoing union funding of the labor party?
It’s great being a financial adviser in Australia isn’t it?!
When the government, or their bureaucracies hide information submitted from stakeholders, is makes a mockery of the claim that “public consultation” has occurred.
ASIC and Treasury are very selective on when they make submissions public, and this is a fundamental break-down in trust with the community they are meant to serve. It is a pity Albanese and the ALP are behaving like this.
Freedom of Info requests should be lodged on ALL submissions.
Lets at least get them out in the public.
What use will it be ?
Most likely none as the Canberra bubble Bureaucrats love ISA and hate Advisers.