Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Hansard source

I join with my colleagues in speaking on the Corporations Amendment (Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2011, being debated cognately with the Corporations Amendment (Further Future of Financial Advice Measures) Bill 2011, and in opposing the bills in their present form. I start by pointing out to the House that what we are witnessing here today from the government, amazingly, is yet another episode in legislative rush, which we have seen has led to grief in so many other portfolio areas over their period in government. This shines a light on this government's incompetent legislative processes. The way they go about trying to legislate in this area is so similar to what we have seen in other areas where there has been policy failure and policy catastrophe.

As speakers on our side of the House have outlined over the past 24 hours, the legislation in its present form cannot be supported. A range of reasons for that have been articulated throughout the course of the debate, but also over many weeks and months. Despite this, the government will stubbornly press ahead. They will do so while many on their back bench know full well that this is flawed legislation and that, as my colleague who spoke before me pointed out, it will cost jobs and choice. If this legislation succeeds it will make Australia the world champions of red tape in the financial services industry.

It is a shame because, despite the incompetence of the ministers bringing this legislation forward, those on Labor's back bench in their party room—or their caucus, as they call it—would know that this is damaging legislation. Yet they are prepared to support it. It is not just a reflection on the failure of senior ministers—and what a failure it has been, as speakers on our side of the House have outlined—but it is also a massive reflection on the failure of those in the caucus. Some have been very involved, for a number of years, in the parliamentary inquiry that I have been on. They have seen this legislation evolve in the past few weeks and they would know full well, as the previous speaker pointed out, that it will cost jobs, that it will cost choice, that it will increase red tape and that it will be bad legislation.

Our side of the House has outlined that we will move a number of amendments. If these amendments were to be supported, this legislation would be what it should be. But, at present, as we have outlined, it is unnecessarily complex. It will, as I have just said, cost jobs. It will enshrine an unlevel playing field amongst providers and favour a government-friendly business model. As just pointed out, it will cost $700 million to implement and $350 million a year to comply with—and those are conservative industry estimates. I point out at the outset that the criticisms the coalition brings forward are echoed right throughout the industry by so many of those within it. That is why the coalition has put forward its views on amendments. Those views have not just been put forward throughout the course of this debate. Importantly, what these amendments embody has been very much part of the public discussion throughout the course of inquiries, including the inquiry by the joint committee of which I am a member. Unfortunately the government has done what it has done on so many occasions when it is seeking to bring in a change: it has refused to listen and it is stubbornly pressing ahead.

I want to briefly take some of the House's time to outline the areas in which we are seeking critical amendment on this legislation. Firstly—and you would think it would be an uncontested fact—the government should be required by parliament to table a regulatory impact statement on these reforms as compiled by the government's own Office of Best Practice Regulation. That is contestable. It in itself says so much about the government's approach. According to the government's own office the government did not have adequate information before it to assess the impact of these changes on business and consumers and to assess the cost-benefit of any proposed changes. That is not an assessment that coalition members and senators made; that is an assessment that the government's own Office of Best Practice Regulation has made.

Secondly, the government's proposal for an opt-in is an illustration of the chaotic policymaking on that side. Back in 2009, I think it was—and Mr Deputy Speaker Windsor, you would recall this, because I know you follow these issues—we had the Ripoll inquiry. It was a significant inquiry into financial services. If this legislation passes, the proposal for opt-in imposes a mandatory requirement on consumers to re-sign contracts with their financial advisers on a regular basis.

See this speech in context