“This provides an important opportunity for us to continue that dialogue, to strike the right balance and achieve the right outcomes,” Scotchbrook said.

Late Tuesday afternoon, a motion to disallow the code changes for tax agents failed to succeed in the Senate.

The motion moved by Senator Dean Smith to disallow the Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024 received 31 ayes and 31 noes in the vote.

The determination was first introduced by Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones in July, and eight new obligations for registered tax and BAS agents were introduced.

The obligations received considerable backlash from the tax profession, particularly sections 15 and 45.

In Tuesday’s debate, Queensland Senator Anthony Chisholm noted that the government had committed to industry bodies to make further changes to the tax determination.

“This includes outlining the obligations within section 15 of the instrument of the Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board code of ethics. This voluntary code currently applies to only some tax agents. The change will expand it to all tax agents in a consistent way,” he said.

“The government has also committed to reduce the number of items in the disclosure obligations to section 45 to remove duplicative items that are already covered in other areas of law. Industry bodies have indicated support for these changes.”

Independent Senator David Pocock said he shared concerns that industry representatives had raised around the poor process and consultation of the bill, but he also recognised the “good-faith engagement” from the government and the agreement with industry bodies to work through the remaining outstanding issues.

“I believe the government should have the opportunity to deliver on this. Should they not, I’d be very happy to support a disallowance, but at this stage, I won’t be,” he said.

Greens Senator Barbara Pocock said there was a “pressing need for action” to hold tax agents to account in light of evidence the chamber had heard in relation to PwC.

“We’ve had a lot of outrage in this chamber about what our nation has seen in corrupt behaviour, and what we need is action into the future, not deferral,” she said.

“We need timely action that allows us to hold tax agents who behave improperly – the small proportion who behave improperly – to account.”

Natasha Panagis, head of superannuation and financial services for the Institute of Financial Professionals Australia, said section 45, the disclosure provision, is now being drafted in a prescriptive style, making it clear that the private and personal characteristics of tax practitioners are not disclosable.

“Section 15, the ‘dob-in’ requirement for false or misleading statements (where a client refuses to correct such a statement) will be redrafted to replicate the much higher threshold set under the Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board Code of Ethics (APES), which already applies to many tax practitioners,” she said.

An amended legislative instrument will be issued soon, followed by further guidance material from the TPB and a public consultation process.

“We will continue to engage in the process and look for ways of assisting members manage the impact on their practices of the new Code of Professional Conduct changes that come into effect on 1 July 2025,” Panagis said.