Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to take part in this debate this afternoon. It is a matter of genuine public interest. It is a matter of considerable concern. In my former role as the member for Robertson—and also as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Financial Services and Corporations—I had the incredible privilege of hearing the awful stories, particularly with regard to Trio Capital. I learned about Trio when I picked up that committee. People were advised very poorly—we have heard number of those stories here this afternoon—and ended up in the most desperate situations.

I can remember one Saturday morning when the sun was shining and, for all intents and purposes, it was a great day in Australia. I walked down the street in Kincumber and knocked on a door. A gentleman approached me. He had never been doorknocked by a politician before. The story that unfolded about the loss of his entire life savings of $800,000 was the first that I heard of the terrible impact of the Trio Capital range of advice that was given to people.

I do not want to paint the entire financial services sector in a negative light. That is the risk of a debate like this. There are people who are doing a great job, helping Australians to earn money, grow their wealth and improve their retirement. But that sector is very divided on this issue. I want to put on the record, before I go any further, the comments of Matthew Rowe in response to Emma Alberici, who asked the question about a point that has been much debated here this afternoon—the consumers' best interests. Let's be clear about what that means. When I go to a doctor, I expect the doctor to give me advice in my best interest, not his or hers. When I go to a lawyer, I expect the lawyer to give me advice in my best interest, not his or hers because they are subject to some sort of corrupting influence or financial incentive. When Australians today go to a financial planner, they want to know that they are going to have information given to them that will be in their best interest. That is what this legislation is going to pull apart. The FoFA reforms that the Labor government put in were seeking to ensure, for all Australians, that the advice they are given is in their best interest. But that is what is under discussion at this point, and ready for dismantling. Emma Alberici asked the core question:

Reintroducing the ability for planners to accept commissions, is that in consumers' best interests? We've talked about the interests of you and businesses like yours, is that change in the best interests of consumers?

Matthew Rowe, who is the chair of the Financial Planning Association, made it very clear. On behalf of the industry itself he said:

I don't believe it's in the best interests of consumers. I think it's a retrograde step.

That statement reveals two very important things. Financial planners who wanted to do good work for Australians are very happy with the FoFA legislation that the Labor government put through, because it is an effort to professionalise an industry where there have been sharks and shonks—people of avarice and greed—who have ripped families apart and ripped people's savings away from them, knowingly acting in their own interests instead of their clients' interests. That is what all this FoFA talk is about.

Often people listening to these debates wonder what legislation in this place does. I was intimately associated with the FoFA legislation. I want to acknowledge the great work of the member for Oxley, Mr Ripoll, and his committee. The legislation was about ensuring that Australians can have confidence when they go to secure information about their financial future. We implemented a best-interest duty. We said that people should be able to opt in. Every two years they should have a choice put before them: do I really want to stay with this person or not? There should be annual disclosure statements provided to let you know exactly what it is that you are paying for so that you can make an informed decision about sticking with it or moving off. Conflicted remuneration was the most insidious of all elements that needed to be removed, but it is up for grabs again now because of this legislation that has been introduced by Senator Cormann.

The problems we face with the legislation that came through from the then Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sinodinos, are that it removes best interests, scraps opt in and gets rid of annual disclosure, and there is only a partial lifting, but a dangerous one, of conflicted remuneration. These things put Australians' hard-earned savings at risk and put the financial sector at the edge. Instead of being a critical profession, they become marginal boundary riders and a shonky profession. We cannot allow it to be that way. I urge the government in its reconsideration to hold up the FoFA reforms as they were— (Time expired)