The House of Reps Economics Committee will hold a public hearing this Thursday, 18 April 2013 into the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No 2) Bill 2013. The hearing will cover 3 schedules in the Bill:
- Schedule 1 which proposes to define a “documentary” for the purpose of accessing film tax offsets, and makes explicit that game shows are not eligible programs for film tax offsets.
- Schedule 5 which proposes to provide for procedures to consolidate accounts where a member of a superannuation fund may have multiple accounts in that fund. It tasks the trustees of certain funds to identify where multiple accounts for the same person exist, and to consider consolidating the accounts, keeping in mind the member’s best interest.
- Schedule 6 which proposes to make changes to the government superannuation co-contribution for low income earners, including reducing the rate of co-contribution from 100 to 50%, and reducing the higher income threshold from $30,000 to id=”mce_marker”5,000 above the lower income threshold.
Further details, including broadcast proceedings of the hearing, are on the Committee’s website.
[LTN 71, 16/4/13]
Transcripts and submissions
The House of Reps Standing Committee on Economics held a public hearing on 18 April 2013 into the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No 2) Bill 2013. It has now released a transcript of that hearing. The Committee heard from Treasury, ASFA, Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, Screen Australia, the Screen Producers Association of Australia.
ASFA said its major concern was the test in the legislation about applying the best interest test at an individual member level as opposed to the general trust fiduciary law basis, which is acting in the collective best interest of members. ASFA said this would be an exercise that would be done en masse and “it really is not feasible for a trustee to apply that test against each and every individual member, particularly not know their circumstances”. ASFA said it would also like to see a safe harbour defence for trustees ie provided they have acted in good faith in compliance with the legislation that protects them against any kind of action from a member.
The Law Council of Australia argued that the Bill overreaches in 2 regards. First, it said it would unnecessarily leave trustees in an unenviable position, whereas slightly different language in the Bill could have achieved the same policy end without that disadvantage. The Bill would give trustees a discretion and leave the decision of whether or not accounts should be merged in a particular case to the trustee. The Law Council said the risk for trustees would be that some members may complain if their accounts are merged; others may complain if their accounts are not merged.
[LTN 75, 22/4/13]