Applaudable effort or missed opportunity?

Jones’ announcement on the passing of the first tranche of legislation aimed at fulfilling his promise to improve access to quality financial advice was surprisingly pared back, devoid of the usual self-congratulatory flair. Perhaps he sensed the irony: just hours earlier, he reversed course on changes to section 99FA that he once staunchly defended as status quo and uncontroversial.

But let’s rewind a few months. Shortly after its unveiling, the first tranche of QAR-inspired reform became a thorn in everyone’s side. It started with supposedly accidental drafting blunders, then spiralled into the infamous section 99FA debacle, turning what should have been a straightforward reform into a tangled mess of frustration.

The government’s decision to complicate matters unnecessarily by suggesting superannuation funds must scrutinise advice statements before doling out advice payments raised eyebrows among advisers, who viewed this as a favour to super funds, aimed at cutting outflows to external advice.

Jones defended the move, insisting that tweaks to section 99FA were just clarifications rather than changes to existing practices.

Even when legal professionals raised concerns, Jones cited QAR’s recommendation 7 as his guiding star.

Michelle Levy, wisely, stayed out of the debate, which soon spiralled into a Senate showdown between two super member bodies – the Super Members Council (SMC) and Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA).

This clash exposed starkly contrasting views on the proposed changes and coupled with an inflammatory press release from the SMC, solidified advisers’ suspicions that industry funds were the driving force behind the s99FA changes, with Jones merely playing along.

Then the Senate committee released its report, which indicated that while the committee heard the concerns of the advice community, which strongly opposed the proposed s99FA, it chose not to act on them.

But credit where it’s due – Jones pulled a surprise move on Thursday. Despite the committee’s stance and the SMC’s push for swift adoption, he made a late-game pivot, proposing amendments to strip out contentious provisions and reassure trustees that their risk-based processes will remain sufficient.

However, the drama surrounding the bill, along with calls from the opposition for the minister to resign, seem to have inflicted lasting damage to Jones’ reputation.

To the opposition, he is incompetent; to the advice profession, a disappointment; and surely, to his own government, a liability.

And just when we thought things were finally progressing, Jones dropped an Easter egg in his post-passage statement: the second tranche of reforms will be developed over the second half of the year.

So much for a quick fix, minister.