Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate today. I just want to confirm to everybody who is listening to this our commitment on the government side to the FoFA reforms—the Future of Financial Advice reforms. I must comment on a number of things that have been said in this chamber. I have listened to banks and the financial advisers industry being vilified in here by Senator Bishop. It is almost as though if you are a bank teller providing general advice you are a criminal.

I think that Senator Cormann has made a very bold and courageous move in embracing further debate on this legislation. The government remains, as I said, committed to implementing these improvements to the future of financial service laws, and we took that to the last election. When I look at the inquiries in 2011 prior to the implementation of this, there was broad support, and as far back as August 2011 when in opposition we raised the fact that we did not like what we saw. We went to the election and said that we would change this. The people of Australia are expecting us to implement the election promises that we took to them, and this is no different.

Unlike the Labor Party, who do not like to have a policy debate, we are going to have a policy debate. There are sections of the community that are not entirely happy and we will embrace them. We heard in question time earlier today that the superclinics in Western Australia are a dismal failure. That is a policy that they did not want to listen to advice on. We argued with the government at the time about the folly of what they were proposing. That policy never got proper scrutiny. They rammed it through, and what do we have? We have one empty GP superclinic in Western Australia, and six were promised. Typical of Labor: the policy is big and bold but they do not deliver. We do not intend to do that.

While we are talking about debating policy, the changes to the FoFA policy came about because the industry said it is going to cost so much money. While we are talking about policy, wouldn't it have been good to have had more policy debate on the pink batts program? Wouldn't it have been good to have had policy scrutiny on the cash-for-clunkers program? Wouldn't it have been good to engage and exercise a little bit of caution on GroceryWatch? What happened to GroceryWatch? And there was the mother of all policy failures: the NBN. Reportedly, it was put together on the back of a serviette on a VIP flight with the then Prime Minister—with the revolving doors of Labor's Prime Ministers—and Senator Conroy. Wouldn't it have been good if that policy had suffered a little bit more scrutiny—in fact, if that policy had had a business plan? It was the $40 billion infrastructure project of the century. What a failure that has been, yet here we are left to pick up the pieces and clean up the mess.

We are not going to do that. Like Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General, announced today, we are going to put out an exposure draft on section 18C. That is because we want to engage the community. There will be an exposure draft so that all the backbenchers, the opposition, the media and all the interest groups can have a say. That is the same scrutiny that Minister Cormann is going to apply to this. We are committed to ensuring we have the right balance between appropriate levels of consumer protection and ensuring affordable access to high-quality advice. What Labor did in government was regulatory overreach, because they do not understand—it is just easier to regulate than try and solve the problem. They just want to talk about the problem; they do not want to fix the problem. They imposed way too much unnecessary and costly regulation which ultimately has to be paid for by the people saving for their retirement. That $190 million of ongoing operational costs are going to have to be paid by the same retirees who want their money invested. Wouldn't it be much better if that $190 million a year was left in the pockets of the people who earned it and they were not burdened with this regulatory claptrap—that is the word that comes to mind—that Labor just lazily overlaid on industry.

I have a lot of sympathy for what has been going on. This is a highly technical area. The more technical and harder the argument the easier it is to knock it off its feet. The simple play from the other side is, 'We'll be ruined,' but we will not be because otherwise you will not stop fraud, you will not stop criminal activity and you will not stop the Bernie Madoffs of this world who are systematically corrupt. The rules and regulations will be there for the benefit of all the people who are good and have proper intentions. In the meantime, there is an inquiry underway, which is due to report in the middle of June. I urge all members of the public and of the Senate and the other chamber to have their input into that important inquiry.