TRUSTEE COMPANIES (COMMONWEALTH REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 July 2010.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:03): I indicate to the council that I intend my remarks on this bill to be brief, but I do assure the council that if the government continues the bullyboy tactics of last night and tries to drown me out I stand ready to provide my thoughts in more detail. The opposition has considered the Trustee Companies—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: What a sooky la-la.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Apparently, the honourable minister for local government has asked that she would like more detail, so I look forward to telling the council about the national standard schemes of legislation.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: That's just a lie. That's a complete lie. You're misleading parliament.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Excuse me, I have the call, so I choose to take the call. Does the minister have a point of order? If you have a point of order, raise it; if you haven't got a point of order, be quiet.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Don't lie in parliament. You don't need to lie.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Apparently, the minister is determined to drown me out. I will restate my position. If this government intends to drown me out, I will give my thoughts in full. The minister has already proceeded to that approach—the same approach of last night. That is not the way to run this council, and I intend to use my rights to speak regardless of minister Gago's lack of willingness to hear other people's views.

The PRESIDENT: Then get on with it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you for your protection, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: You're welcome.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Apparently, the minister has indicated that she has another meeting. I do not know why the house needs to know that, but she is on her way—great!

The opposition has considered the Trustee Companies (Commonwealth Regulation) Amendment Bill 2010 and supports the bill. I thank the Attorney-General and his staff for the briefing, and I thank the industry stakeholders who responded to our invitation to comment. They all welcomed this legislation. The opposition, too, supports this legislation as facilitating nationally consistent regulation of trustee companies.

Most trustee companies provide a range of financial services and are regulated under commonwealth legislation for these activities. They can provide these financial services across government by virtue of their licensing or approval under commonwealth legislation. However, under the state and territory regulated trustee company regime, they also had to be licensed or authorised in each state or territory in which they offered traditional trustee company services.

COAG agreed, and this bill contributes to a commonwealth-based regulation of trustee companies at the entity level and thereby reduces duplication. The agreement at COAG level involves the commonwealth exercising more of its constitutional authority. This bill does not involve the referral of state power.

Of course, on a broad reading of commonwealth power by the High Court since Federation, the states' domain could be dramatically reduced. Modern federalism in Australia is as much a political consensus as a constitutional formula. We still need, as a parliament, to actively consider whether the exercise of a commonwealth power is appropriate in terms of the federal balance.

In this bill, we will be asked to consider whether we are willing to cooperate with the commonwealth assuming more of its power. The state executive (the state government), through COAG, has agreed to the commonwealth assuming more of its power. We, as a Liberal Party in this parliament, support that occurring.

I do agree with the comments of the honourable member for Bragg, when she raised concerns about situations where financial benefits or inducements need to be provided for such reforms to proceed. After all, if the reforms are worthwhile, they should fall or stand on their own merits.

I would note that, even though the supervision of trustee companies at entity level will be assumed by the commonwealth, the state will maintain an active role in this area because the states will continue to legislate for wills administration, probate and so forth. They will regulate trustee companies like any other participants in the field.

State and territory public trustees will not be subject to the new commonwealth regulatory regime. We as an opposition query why that decision has been made. After all, if a significant part of this is about protection of the consumer, surely a consumer needs to have rights as against a state government entity as much as a private sector entity.

In the course of his remarks in summing up the second reading of the bill in the other place, the Attorney-General endorsed opposition concerns about the undesirability of the succession of state powers to the commonwealth (this is in general terms and was not in relation to this proposal) and the fiscal subservience of the states and the commonwealth. The Attorney-General said:

I guess all of us would hope that in a mature federation there should be some better way of achieving these outcomes, but that seems to be the only way that is presently operational.

That last comment was in relation to the use of financial inducements. I would indicate the willingness of the opposition to work with the Attorney-General and the government to foster a more mature federation. In that context I was disturbed to read comments of the Minister for Health in another place in the context of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Bill. He was commenting on an amendment proposed by this house. On 29 June he said:

I have one final point to make to the Greens members of the other place who rejected the government's proposition. I am happy that they rejected it, but what interests me is that the Greens Party, which is continually telling parliaments around Australia to put aside state interests and think of the national interest or the international interest, to put aside parochial concerns and vote for the national interest, were prepared in relation to health regulations to vote for a states' rights position. I am happy that they have put their colours on the mast that, when it comes down to it, they are a states' rights party, along with the Liberal Party and other conservative parties in this state.

I thought that the arrogance of that comment was breathtaking, but it was actually overwhelmed by its ignorance. Clearly the minister had not read any of the contributions in this house. In my second reading contribution on that bill I said:

Now I make it clear that, even though I am a federalist, for me this is not about states' rights. After all, the states have the right to work with other states in the exercise of their common functions. The commonwealth is not taking over this area of legislative authority. I do not see this as a matter of states' rights. It is more a matter of the appropriate roles of the executive and the parliament. It is more a matter of access of the community to laws.

The Hon. Tammy Jennings in that same second reading debate said:

So, while supporting the bill, we—

I presume that to mean the Greens—

also echo some of the concerns that I am sure will be raised by members of the opposition in terms of the format in which the bill was presented in this place and in terms of the lack of timeliness. Of course, we believe the pursuit of a national scheme is something that overrides political concerns, although we would like to see the government get its act together on it.

As I read it, the Greens' concerns were focused on the format of the bill—that is what it says: they were not focused on states' rights but were about the issues of executive power and community access to law. Minister Hill's knee-jerk attack on the phantom of state rights is no basis for a mature federation. To presume the government knows best, that the executive is wiser than the parliament and that the commonwealth is supreme is old-style socialist thinking and should be beyond a modern political party.

In that respect I again welcome the comments by the Attorney-General that he is hoping to pursue a more mature federation, and for the opposition's part we put on the record our eagerness to work with the Attorney-General and, for that matter, with other members of this place in particular to look at ways in which we can develop a model for the handling of nationally consistent legislation, a model which respects the modern nature of Australia, the need to develop a more mature federation, but a model that respects also the contributions of both the parliaments and governments of Australia.

I will certainly be contacting the Attorney-General to try to facilitate those conversations. I know legislation is coming up in the next six to 12 months that will involve exactly the same issues we had in relation to the health legislation. It would be extremely constructive for all elements in this parliament to think about the best way to reflect a modern, mature Australian federation. We welcome the Attorney-General's commitment to that goal and hope that this parliament can make its contribution to it. In the context of this legislation, we reaffirm our commitment to that goal.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (11:14): I thank the shadow attorney-general for his comments and support of this bill and look forward to its speedy passage through this place.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have only one question in committee and it relates to the issue of the Public Trustee. I know that the Attorney-General and the member for Bragg had a discussion in the other place on the basis that the state does not intend to consent to this legislation applying to the Public Trustee. Would the minister be able to confirm that is the government's position and the reasons for it?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that there has been no decision made on that matter. The government intends to observe the operation of the legislation. If it were to appear appropriate to transfer the Public Trustee to the commonwealth's jurisdiction, then the procedure that would apply is that the state minister would have to request it and for the commonwealth to consent to that happening. As I reiterate, there is no such intention at present to do that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 17), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.