Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think with most things that happen in this House there is good intention on both sides for a position that you may hold, and I certainly understand the opposition's concerns with this legislation when you look at it from a certain perspective. They are raising issues and concerns about Storm Financial and other examples. They happened, and no-one likes that. In almost every industry in whatever field you want to look at there is a shark or two, and that is never good, especially when we are talking about people's finances. It is very easy to pick out an example and say: this has cost this person this much money and we have to regulate to fix it.

I will say a couple of things. One is that the regulations that we are talking about today did not protect those investors anyway, and would not have. It is very difficult to regulate against criminals. They will do what they do and they will flout the regulations. The other side of this, which has been completely ignored by the other side, is the regulation and the red tape that they want to keep is a cost and a burden that is not worn by the financial adviser; it is worn by the investor. They can come up with examples which are very true where investors have been ripped off by a shark, which is not good. But the regulation would not have protected them anyway. But the bigger picture is—and the opposition have acknowledged this—that the vast majority of financial planners in this country are good people. They have the best interests of their clients at heart and they have the best interests to get good returns for their clients.

We acknowledge that a shark is a shark, and it is very hard to regulate to protect you from them. People, at the end of the day, have to take some personal responsibility as well in those situations and be clear about what they are doing. But what we are proposing is going to increase the return for mum-and-dad investors. It was very well raised by a previous member that a lot of balances for a lot of investors are quite small, and when you put on extra red-tape burdens and extra costs they are the ones that are hurt. It might not be as emotional as the $150,000 lost to Storm Financial, which is a very small section of the market and very unusual, but what we are talking about is hundreds of millions of dollars over time of money being taken out. That is what is happening. It is being taken out of people savings accounts because of overregulation.

We do not even need to be talking about financial services; it could be any aspect of our community, not just your money but agriculture, occupational health and safety or anything. It is almost like the other side thinks, 'If there is a thought on something, regulate it. If there's a perceived problem on something, let's regulate it. If there's a shark there, let's try and regulate the whole industry because of that one shark, which is going to add extra red tape and cost to it.'

This legislation is all about achieving the balance. Everything is about a balance. It is a balance that says, 'Yes, we have to provide adequate consumer protection.' No-one here is saying that the consumer does not need protection; they do. So it is adequate protection, again, without burdens. This country—and I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, know this—is in some ways the most expensive country to do business in lots of things. This is just another example of a section of the economy where we are making it exceptionally expensive for us to do business, and penalising our mum and dad investors and their superannuation. The protections that we are going to maintain here, and the regulations, ensure a commitment from the providers, from the financial planners, to lift their professional, ethical and educational standards. Again, the balance is in the red tape, not penalising.

See this speech in context