Assistant Treasurer and Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones, in response to pressure from the accounting industry, delayed the commencement of the determination just ahead of its original start date on 1 August, pushing it back to 1 January 2025 for firms with 101 employees or more and 1 July 2025 for firms with 100 employees or less.

In a letter to the accounting bodies, Jones stressed that practitioners still need to continue to take genuine steps towards compliance during this period.

"This aligns with the government's existing approach and the public statements that the TPB has already made regarding implementation of these important obligations," he said.

"It also provides certainty that the TPB can and will work collaboratively with you to understand and implement the obligations. Should it become clear to the government during the process to finalise guidance that it is critical that changes be made to the determination I will engage constructively with you and other stakeholders."

Simply delaying the implementation of the determination is not enough, the Coalition said, arguing that it will “drive up costs for Australians and small businesses who rely on and trust tax professionals to help manage their financial affairs”.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said the government is “layering red tape upon red tape on finance professionals that just drive up costs for consumers”.

“This isn’t the right approach in a cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business crisis. Local accountants and bookkeepers have been blindsided by this new red tape, yet Labor has refused to listen to community feedback,” Taylor said.

Shadow assistant treasurer and shadow minister for financial services Luke Howarth added that “rushed and botched regulation” has become a hallmark of the current government.

“Financial advisers learned this after the Assistant Treasurer’s failure to live up to his promises on advice reform. Now the Assistant Treasurer isn’t just failing to cut red tape, he is creating even more of it for tax practitioners,” Howarth said.

“This pile of new red tape is unwarranted – local accountants and bookkeepers are already highly regulated and some of the most trusted professionals in our community.”

Meanwhile, shadow assistant minister for competition, charities, and treasury, Dean Smith, pushed for action against the determination in the Senate.

“The Coalition calls on all crossbench Senators to support the disallowance and reverse the regulatory burden and uncertainties that will fall on accountants, bookkeepers, and other financial professionals at a time when they can least afford it,” Smith said.

The headline issues, according to the opposition, include:

• Minimal or no consultation.
• Unrealistic commencement timeframes and no regulator guidance.
• Retrospectivity, with a requirement to consider matters as far back as 1 July 2022.
• A disproportionate impact on small practices and sole practitioners.
• A new requirement to report to clients on any matter that could significantly influence a decision of a client to engage with them, which could include health and mental health issues.
• A new requirement to report to clients about ongoing investigations before there has been an outcome.
• Inconsistent obligations, including a duty to ‘dob in’ clients despite an existing obligation not to disclose confidential client information without the client’s permission.

Following the delayed commencement of the code changes, tax practitioners and professional bodies declared a partial victory.

“It's a conditional win and the conditions are still bad,” David Boyar, CEO of accounting software provider ChangeGPS, told SMSF Adviser's sister brand Accountants Daily.

“They’ve dealt with the deadline issue now. So that is the win. The condition is that all the other bad rules still remain.

“This is just the start – now real effort needs to go into addressing parts of the law that are genuinely unfair.”

CA ANZ, one of the professional bodies that spearheaded advocacy efforts against the changes, said the postponement failed to address core concerns around sections 45 and 15 of the determination.

“Moving timelines does not change the rules themselves. Instead, we call for the current legislative determination to be withdrawn and rewritten,” chief executive Ainslie van Onselen said.

She also raised concerns about the potential for client disclosure obligation under section 45 to breach practitioners’ privacy.

“Any law that is open to being interpreted as requiring individuals to disclose their private health information has serious human rights implications and amounts to a significant breach of privacy,” she said.

“Our second concern is the requirement to disclose to clients and prospective clients if they are subject to an investigation by the TPB or another relevant body.

“None of these matters appear to have been considered … which suggests these important new requirements have not been properly thought through or legislated.”