Four out of 10 bodies got it right – here’s why

Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones would have had cause to choke on his breakfast yesterday when six out of the 10 professional bodies getting ready to have a chat with him and Treasury officials about the new determination that imposes eight new ethical obligations in law.

Six bodies led by Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand and CPA Australia paid for full page advertisements in The Australian and the Australian Financial Review alerting the world to what would usually be a niche turf war between professional nerds and bureaucrats over wording in legislation.

This is meat-and-potatoes stuff for advocacy professionals usually worked out behind the proverbial curtains but on this occasion six of the 10 bodies that wrote to Jones about what they each think is legislative overreach.

The non-signatories are the Institute of Public Accountants, The Tax Institute, the Financial Advice Association and the SMSF Association.

Each of the 10 bodies share the same concerns about the dob in a client provision in the determination and the breadth of drafting of a provision that requires accountants to tell clients about things that could substantially influence a tax agent or adviser being engaged by an individual or entity.

The six bodies that decided the ad in major daily newspapers did so on the day Treasury was due to hand over material for the professional bodies to review before the big consultation on Friday. Was that the wisest of moves? Let’s consider a few points below.

The discussions need to be held in good faith

Jones and his team as well as Treasury officials walk into a room with ads having been put in by organisations that have people around the table. The minister deserved clean air to fix the problems before people went nuclear.

Full page ads are like gunboat diplomacy two days out from a critical meeting may create unneeded tension and sources within the non-signing bodies confirm that Treasury and the minister are of a mind to change things.

Entering into discussions in good faith remains critical even given the failure of the government to properly deal with aspects of this in the first place.

A split between the 10 bodies can be used rhetorically

The government and the Australian Greens were key players in the development of the determination and its contents. The ad campaign with only six signatories offers speechwriters an opportunity to arm their Senate bosses backing the determination with arguments for the debate over the motion. Why give your opponents on the issue ammunition to play with? Isn’t that a bit silly?

Would Monday have been better?

Dissatisfaction from all 10 bodies after the final meeting would be a more powerful message. What do people do on Monday if the talks don’t go well? Run another ad campaign calling for disallowance having already spent member funds on yesterday’s activism? Hitting the minister with ads on a day when a final proposal is due to hit the table could be perceived in government circles as being a tad premature.

Everyone acknowledges the minister and the department have been tardy in the way they have dealt with the determination. It is the definition of a right royal cock up.

Basic consultation protocols have not been followed but does an ad campaign timed the way this one was achieve the desired outcome for the members of all 10 bodies?

Let’s face it – these are all judgement calls made by people seeking the same end. but one thing is certain: in advocacy, as in life, more noise does not always mean more substance.