Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition's position has not changed since it previously considered this package of legislation. We are disappointed that our series of detailed amendments last time have not been adopted by the government.

Our amendments, firstly, sought to delay the implementation of the legislation until 1 July 2013. We thought we nearly had the government's agreement on our proposal for that. Instead they have gone down their own path in the Senate. Secondly, we sought to remove opt-in arrangements. Thirdly, we sought to make annual fee disclosures prospective rather than retrospective. Fourthly, we wanted to ensure that anti-avoidance provisions only applied prospectively. Fifthly, we wanted to ensure that commissions are not paid on life risk insurance inside MySuper products or within superannuation if the cover is automatic. Sixthly, we sought to ensure that superannuation funds retain the ability to offer intrafund advice.

Seventh, we wanted to provide a clear definition of a 'funds manager' to ensure that fees are not caught in the ban on volume based shelf-space fees and to permit rebates from fund managers to product providers and retain consumer scale benefits discounts. Eighth, we wanted to allow scaleable advice. Ninth, we wanted to instil a robust best-interest duty recommendation to enhance and improve consumer protections. Tenth, we wanted to provide express exemption on general, over-the-counter advice. Eleventh, we wanted to amend an unintended consequence to ensure that there is a causal link between the payment for and provision of financial advice. Twelfth, we wanted to ensure that a financial advisory business can be sold to employees of the business without the sale proceeds being caught in conflicted remuneration provisions within the legislation. And lastly, my lucky number, 13: we wanted to ensure that counterproductive geographical limits were removed from the legislation. These, you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, are all sensible amendments. They are all wise, they are all carefully considered—and they have all been rejected by the government in its wisdom. The coalition are of the opinion that we are unable to support this legislation in its current form, without passage of our substantive amendments.

I note that the government have chosen to move an amendment in the Senate on the start date of this legislation. The government have done this because they did not have the legislation ready when the legislation was before the House in March and despite the fact that the coalition moved an amendment which would have had the same effect as the government's amendment. We put forward amendments in the House of Representatives; the government rejected them here and then made one of those same amendments in the Senate, and they are now saying, 'What a great idea.' I urge the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Financial Services and Superannuation, who is the minister at the table: pick up the other 12 proposed coalition amendments. It is not too late, Bill. Forget what the Treasurer thinks. He is the same Treasurer who was out there this morning saying that the claim about the denial of water to schoolkids was in fact a great big lie. I would not believe anything that the Treasurer says, especially on this legislation. Do not take his advice on FOFA.

See this speech in context