Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

To put it into context so my learned friend over here may understand something, of the 22,000 so-called new regulations—additional or new—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

He doesn't even know what the number is. I am quoting back the Liberals.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

Deputy Speaker Vasta, if he would be so kind as to be so rude and continually interrupting me. I am a much more generous to him than he is to me. Out of those so-called new regulations that the Liberal Party continually trot out—and I have many scripts—3,400 of those so-called pesky business burdens were airworthiness certificates! My point being made. Many—more than 4,000—were actually asked by small business or were about tax concessions or range of other things which were beneficial to small business. I am sure anyone who flies—many of us in this place; all of us, in fact—would very much appreciate that the government continues to put in those regulatory 'burdens'—which would be the same under the Liberal Party in government, by the way, because they do not have any choice either on those.

To get back to the point rather than being interrupted: the billions of dollars in new fees and commissions. There has been some really good work done on this which actually shows the scope of this. They are not coming out of no-one's pockets; they are actually coming out of consumers' pockets. Again, that is the blaring, glaring reality. If you had a spotlight in your eyes and said, 'What is the blaring reality here?' Well, this is what it is: billions of dollars coming out of ordinary people's accounts. Research from Rice Warner on the direct cost to consumers of the changes, including the return of conflicted rem., shows that on an annual basis it would cost almost half a billion dollars, almost three times the estimated business savings. It is completely irresponsible of this government to continue with this change.

This is a government that took the opportunity—took the advantage, if you like—in opposition, as oppositions may do from time to time. It took that advantage, kicking the hell out of the government. But, unfortunately, they just kicked the hell out of the government on the wrong stuff. FoFA is about protecting people. Does the Liberal Party and the Liberal government really want to be the ones responsible for the next big collapse? Responsible for the next group of people who come through and have been dudded with the perpetrators getting away with it in a legal sense because of the soft, weakened, jelly-backed amendments to really good, strong protections for consumers? Because that is exactly what will happen and that is exactly what will take place.

I do not think it is missed on consumers or superannuants—people saving for their retirement or investing their life savings—people who get caught up in manage investment schemes and SMSFs. When there is a particular loss that occurs people obviously do look for blame. This is one of the areas of blame they will be able to squarely look to. They will look in the eye of this mob across there and they will ask, 'How can they get away with this? Weren't there protections in place?' Yes, there were. Unfortunately, they are just not there anymore. I think that is the really sad part.

Unfortunately, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the good debate, regardless of the time that has been taken to do the right thing by industry, by small business, by everyone in the financial services sector, by lifting that standard, by changing the culture, by looking to professionalise and raise all of those things—but, most importantly to protect consumers—I think it is a great, great day of shame that it will be this Liberal government that actually destroys all of that.

See this speech in context