ON BEHALF of CPA Australia I acknowledge the successful passage of Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA)," said CPA Australia chairman and president, Peter Wilson.

"The IA-CEPA will further strengthen the economic and commercial ties between these two markets," Mr Wilson said. "Indonesia is one of the fastest growing economies in the region, and one of Australia’s nearest neighbours. This geographical proximity, plus the countries’ already strong ties means that Australian businesses and jobs are well positioned to benefit from this new agreement.

"Under the agreement, non-tariff barriers to trade will be reduced, paperwork simplified and the IA-CEPA will allow 99 percent of Australia's goods exports to enter Indonesia either duty free or with significantly improved preferential arrangements. All Indonesia's goods exports will enter Australia duty free.

"Encouraging international trade by removing impediments is very positive for both Australian businesses and Australian jobs. The agreement also ensures that Indonesia will not apply tariffs to Australian goods exports in the future," he said.

"We also acknowledge the bipartisan support of the Australian Labor Party who supported the passage of this important legislation."

Indonesia is an important trading partner with Australia. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), in 2018, total two-way trade in goods and services with Indonesia was worth A$17.6 billion, making Indonesia Australia's 4th largest trading partner.

ends

a

CPA Australia is one of the world's largest accounting bodies, with more than 164,000 members working in 150 countries and regions and supported by 19 offices globally. Our core services to members include education, training, technical support and advocacy. Employees and members work together with local and international bodies to represent the views and concerns of the profession to governments, regulators, industries, academia and the community. Visit our website: www.cpaaustralia.com.au

ON MONDAY December 2, the PFAS Sub-committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) will hear from the Department of Defence about the effectiveness of its National PFAS Investigation and Management Program.

The chair of the PFAS Sub-committee the John McVeigh MP said the Department of Defence was at the forefront of remediation work on per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination in Australia.

The Department of Defence is now conducting PFAS investigation and remediation work at 28 Defence sites, with innovative water and soil treatments being delivered with the aid of expert environmental service providers.

“The question for the Sub-committee," Dr McVeigh said, “is whether these works are delivering the desired results, and being seen to do so?”

Evidence from the ANU PFAS Health study last week confirmed what Sub-committee members have seen in affected communities themselves - the levels of anxiety and uncertainty are high. This is despite the evidence that concentrations of PFAS in the environment, and hence people’s exposure, is coming down.

“With environmental regulations becoming more robust and locally based medical evidence being consolidated, reducing exposure to PFAS and its presence in water and soil is environmental best practice”, Dr McVeigh said.

“The challenge is to ensure that the Department of Defence is accountable to the public for the work being done, and that affected communities, in particular, are informed of progress, and problems, at each step of the way.”

The PFAS Sub-committee will report on the evidence taken by the end of the year and continue its ongoing scrutiny of government activity at hearings from the first sitting weeks of 2020.

Public hearing details:

Date: Monday 2 December 2019
Time: ~4:10pm to 5pm
Location: Committee Room IR4, Parliament House, Canberra.

The hearing will be audio streamed live at www.aph.gov.au/live.

ends

THE GOVERNMENT and crossbench must not abandon the almost 400,000 small businesses and sub-contractors in the building and construction industry. 

That is the warning from Master Builders Australia’s CEO Denita Wawn, who said that it is now "more crucial than ever that it be made clear that the small businesses and subbies aren't going to be left to the mercy of bullying and thuggery displayed by some organisations and their officials". 

"There are more small businesses in the building and construction industry than any other sector of the economy, and 99 percent of illegal bullying and thuggery committed by some unions and their officials happens to our members,” MsWawn said. 

"We've been inundated with calls this morning, particularly from small subbies, to express their fears in light of the Senate's decision. 

"They are telling us what everyone knows - building unions will spin the outcome as being given a green light to continue their tactics of bullying and intimidation,” Ms Wawn said. 

"They are worried that a bad situation will now get far worse and are asking - who will stick up for us? Master Builders thanks to the Senators who voted to support the Bill, particularly those from South Australia.

"We've made it very clear to all our South Australian members that Centre Alliance and Senator Bernardi did the right thing and backed them in the vote,” Ms Wawn said.

"We applaud Senators Patrick and Griff from Centre Alliance, and Independent Senator Cory Bernardi, for taking such a considered and constructive approach to the Ensuring Integrity Bill.

"These Senators, particularly Senator Rex Patrick, have listened and recognised there is a problem. We congratulate them for doing the right thing by South Australian small businesses by saying ‘yes’ to small business and ‘no’ to bullying,” she said. 

"It is crucial for Government to now let the industry know that they won't be abandoned. We want the Government to bring this Bill back to the Parliament as a matter of urgency, to show they remain committed to finding a solution to a problem that is obvious to everyone. 

"Almost everyone who spoke during the Ensuring Integrity Bill debate acknowledged there is a problem and we want them to work towards finding a solution," Ms Wawn said.

www.masterbuilders.com.au

ends

THE LATEST attempt by ASIC to improve disclosure of superannuation investment fees and costs is a welcome step forward but doesn’t go far enough to fix many of the long-running issues with RG 97, according to Industry Super Australia (ISA).

The effect is that new guidelines for the disclosure of superannuation and managed investment fees will leave consumers more confused when it comes to choosing a fund or product – not less.

Industry Super Australia’s head of research, Nick Coates said while the release of ASIC’s updated Regulatory Guide 97 (RG 97) was important to improving transparency, the new guide doesn’t deliver the clarity consumers need to make informed decisions on fees and cost comparisons.

Despite creating a number of new groupings to more clearly show fees and costs, the new guide still fails to provide a ‘net returns measure’ – a single measure incorporating the effect of fees and costs – which would allow consumers to compare apples with apples across various funds and products.

Another key issue identified by ISA in its submission to ASIC on RG 97 but not addressed in the new guide relates to platforms owned by banks and investment managers, where they are only required to disclose the cost of gaining access to a product – not the cost charged by those issuing the product.

This means consumers may believe these products are less expensive – but are unaware they will then be hit with additional fees and charges on top of what has already been disclosed.

“We know this has been a lengthy process, and while ASIC is trying to get this right, without law reform they can’t fix it, and this is a missed opportunity for consumers," Dr Coates said. “We needed to see the banks’ super fund platforms product costs all in one place so consumers could compare them against cheaper run funds – instead we have ended up with a situation where they are expected to volunteer to provide example disclosure – it’s fanciful.

“While we welcome steps taken by ASIC to improve transparency when it comes to fees and costs, this latest guide doesn’t go far enough when it comes to providing clear and simple comparisons between the bank products and other super funds, and we worry this will impact APRA’s heatmaps that are based on RG 97.

“The only way consumers can have confidence they are comparing apples with apples is to use a net returns measure. This catch-all figure means they can see exactly what they will be earning, after fees and costs.”

www.industrysuper.com

ends