Why the big rush on TASA?

When the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced earlier this year that a Federal Election would be held on 14 September, she not only broke with political convention, she created what amounts to a legislative and regulatory minefield that the financial services industry has been seeking to navigate ever since. 

Among the many legislative and regulatory land mines made more dangerous by the Prime Minister’s election date announcement is the Tax Agents Services Act (TASA), the implementation of which the Financial Planning Association (FPA) is arguing should be delayed for at least another six months. 

The reasons being expounded by the FPA are simple enough: the requirements which will be imposed on financial planners as a result of the TASA legislation are complex and, in circumstances where the industry is struggling to implement the Future of Financial Advice changes, a delay is entirely justified. 

However, the appeals of the FPA for a further extension of the TASA implementation seemed to be falling on deaf ears, with the Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, seeming determined to have the legislation dealt with before the Parliament rises for the final time before the scheduled election. 

At one level, the Government might see itself as being entirely justified in pursuing this implementation before the Parliament rises for the winter break – but at another level, substantial arguments can be mounted against moving to implement legislation with complex regulatory outcomes at a time of such political uncertainty. 

VIEW ALL

View all

The Prime Minister’s unconventional announcement of a Federal Election date more than six months out from the poll means that it has been difficult to apply the caretaker conventions in the same manner as if the election date had been nominated, say, eight weeks out from the holding of the poll.

This has, not unnaturally, given rise to arguments about what the Government should and should not be doing at the current time. 

Should the Government be seeking to rush through legislation about which there is no underlying bipartisan support?

Should the Government be making key appointments within the Australian Public Service or elsewhere, knowing that the appointees do not have the support of the Opposition? 

While the TASA legislation contains complexity for financial planners and will entail implementation difficulties, it can hardly be regarded as politically divisive.

But, notwithstanding this, it is hard to identify the Government’s motivations for pressing it through the Parliament when delay will cost it nothing. 

Irrespective of the niceties of caretaker conventions, the Government would be well advised to give the financial planning industry more time to adjust to the TASA requirements.