Mr FITZGIBBON (5:48 PM) —I do not know about the complimentary remarks that the Minister for Employment Services has made with respect to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, but I am very, very pleased indeed that he has introduced the topic of uncertainty at this stage of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 because, as I pointed out during the second reading stage, this has all been about uncertainty. We had three budgets from this government over its first term of office—and what have we seen each year? More superannuation changes, more burden and more red tape for small business. The minister has said that they are trying to promote the idea of retirement incomes. What they are promoting is more red tape, more financial burden and more hardship for small business.

For the minister to move this amendment now just highlights and adds to what already has been a farcical process. As I said in the second reading stage, we had these announcements in the 1998 budget. We have had all the backflips throughout the year and now finally, 12 months after the event, we are debating just one of the slabs, just one part of the legislation which will put those 1998 budget changes into effect.

Madam Deputy Speaker, wouldn't you think that, over the course of the year, the minister would have identified that the bill before the House today is basically flawed? This is not just a minor amendment. The whole principle of what is being attempted by the government with this new classification of superannuation fund is to recognise that the inherent mutual trust existing between these trust members, five or less, be they family members or business associations, underpins the idea or the very principle of this new superannuation fund. Madam Deputy Speaker, wouldn't you have thought that, if the government were concerned about the idea of any of those trustees deriving an income from any role they might play within the super fund, it would have identified that at the original drafting of the legislation. This is not a minor amendment; it is a fairly significant amendment. One would have thought that over the course of the year—because that is how long the government has had between the announcement of its changes and the debate on this legislation today—the government would have identified that concern.

That just highlights the need for the opposition to have a very, very close look at the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4), because it is a far more complex bill than the one before the House today. This one affects what are just three really basic changes to the structure of the funds. But the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) goes to the very heart of the issues that are of concern to small business. It goes to the very heart of a small business person's ability to use his super fund as a vehicle for investing in his own business premises.

As has been pointed out by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Wills, and as I pointed out during my speech on the second reading debate, this is also very important to regional communities. If the local mechanic can use his super funds as a vehicle to establish a new workshop in the town, that new workshop becomes part of the basic infrastructure of that town, and that is a very good thing.

We will be looking very closely at that. The further mistake from the government today highlights the need for us to look at it. We will again be having a very close look at the in-house investment arrangements for small business operators looking to invest in business premises as a way of promoting their businesses and as a way of improving their businesses. If a fund is not cashed up enough—it might have $100,000 in it, and the premises might be worth $200,000—we need to ensure that the changes under Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) do not deny a small business operator the opportunity to use another external vehicle to top up that fund. Whether it is a trust or a loan to that trust to divert money into the fund, we need to ensure that that ability remains.

Without that ability, the backflip by the government is of no real assistance to small business operators at all. It is the cashed-up funds which may be able to afford the premises which are not so important. They are people who have usually been contributing to their fund for many, many years—if not decades. It is the newer funds we are concerned with. If they are not able to draw in on another vehicle to cash up their fund in order to invest in business premises, then the backflip need not have ever occurred because it is not really going to be of any assistance to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.