|
representatives vote 2019-09-19#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-09-27 12:03:20
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019; Consideration of Senate Message- Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019 - Consideration of Senate Message - Labor amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Andrew Gee</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the amendments be agreed to.</p>- The majority voted against amendments moved by the Member for Whitlam [Stephen Jones](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/whitlam/stephen_jones) (Labor), which means they failed. The amendments would have pushed back the commencement day of this legislation to January 2020 and inserted:
- > *an amendment to the government's amendment which requires that trustees make a decision on the basis of their reasonable belief. That will enable them to identify, with as much precision as the fund is able to, the members who are identified by the government as deserving default life cover. It also provides the trustees and the funds some protection against adverse action by an individual member or their dependant who has either been defaulted in and who shouldn't have been or defaulted out and shouldn't have been.*
- ### Amendments text
- > *(1) Amendment (1), omit “November 2019”, insert “January 2020”.*
- >
- > *(2) Amendment (4), item 3A, paragraph 68AAF(1)(c), before “the member”, insert “it is reasonable to conclude”.*
- >
- > *(4) Amendment (6), omit “ November 2019 ”, substitute “ January 2020 ”.*
- >
- > *(5) Amendment (7), omit “November 2019”, substitute “January 2020”.*
- >
- > *(6) Amendment (8), omit “December 2019”, substitute “February 2020”.*
- >
- > *(8) Amendment (10), omit “November 2019”, substitute “January 2020”.*
- >
- > *(9) Amendment (11), omit “November 2019”, substitute “January 2020”.*
- >
- > *(10) Amendment (12), omit “November 2019”, substitute “January 2020”.*
- >
- > *(11) Amendment (13), omit “November 2019”, substitute “January 2020”.*
- >
- > *(13) Amendment (15), omit “November 2019”, substitute “January 2020”.*
<p class="speaker">Stephen Jones</p><p>I move amendments (1), (2), (4) to (6), (8) to (11) and (13) as circulated in my name.</p><p class="italic">(1) Amendment (1), omit "November 2019", insert "January 2020".</p><p class="italic">(2) Amendment (4), item 3A, paragraph 68AAF(1)(c), before "the member", insert "it is reasonable to conclude".</p><p class="italic">(4) Amendment (6), omit "November<i> 2019</i>", substitute "January<i> 2020</i>".</p><p class="italic">(5) Amendment (7), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020".</p><p class="italic">(6) Amendment (8), omit "December 2019", substitute "February 2020".</p><p class="italic">(8) Amendment (10), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020".</p><p class="italic">(9) Amendment (11), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020".</p><p class="italic">(10) Amendment (12), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020".</p><p class="italic">(11) Amendment (13), omit "November 2019", substitute "January 2020".</p><p class="italic">(13) Amendment (15), omit "November 2019", substitute</p><p>We support the objective of the amendments and the original bill, which is protecting members' interests. Earlier this week we identified a major flaw in the government's bill. On Monday they denied it. Today they have acknowledged it and sought to rectify it. It concerns the circumstances of 475,000 young workers in high-risk jobs. Without group insurance, these workers would be virtually uninsurable. Group insurance is provided to them via their superannuation fund. It's not a trivial issue. Over 103 workers have lost their lives this year alone. Life insurance provides a benefit to their dependants.</p><p>The government acknowledge, through amendments they moved in the other place, that they've got a problem. They acknowledge that this group of workers, young workers in high-risk occupations, should be entitled to default life cover. The problem is that the funds cannot precisely identify each and every one of those members in the way that the government have prescribed in their legislation. We propose to remedy that through our amendment. The problem is this: the government's amendment assumes that trustees have complete information about the occupational risk associated with each individual member's occupation. We wish it was the case, but it's not. These funds only have the information that the employer provides to them. That's what's required by law. It includes their name, their birth date, their address and their place of work. Most funds are able to supplement this information, but it's very time consuming and it's an imperfect activity. Trustees do know the industry of their employer and sometimes the occupation, but it's not always accurate. It's for that reason we're proposing to insert an amendment to the government's amendment which requires that trustees make a decision on the basis of their reasonable belief. That will enable them to identify, with as much precision as the fund is able to, the members who are identified by the government as deserving default life cover. It also provides the trustees and the funds some protection against adverse action by an individual member or their dependant who has either been defaulted in and who shouldn't have been or defaulted out and shouldn't have been. It is a sensible amendment. It is a practical amendment. It's one that should enjoy the support of all members in this House. We ask that members opposite support these amendments and ensure that this bill can enjoy the support of all members in this place.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Whitlam be agreed to.</p>
|