Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this debate. I am really, really unhappy with the contribution made by Senator Williams. Senator Williams and I worked together on the economics committee for a long period of time, trying to get people proper protection in relation to financial advice. It was Senator Williams and I who argued strongly for the establishment of inquiries into Commonwealth financial planning and into ASIC's role as well. Senator Williams indicated that no-one has played a stronger role than him on this issue. Up until now, that may have been true. But now we see Senator Williams capitulating to the finance sector, Senator Cormann and the party—and that is not good for consumers. I do agree that Senator Williams has played a strong role, but that strong role is no longer there. Instead of being Batman, he is now the Joker. He has gone from trying to protect people to actually arguing that things should happen that are going to make it hard for people. I do not agree with the proposition from Senator Williams.

In all the arguments coming forward are two clear groups. You have representatives of consumers and academics who have studied the legislation saying, 'This is bad and it is taking protection for consumers backwards.' Then you have the banks and financial institutions saying, 'This is great. This is what should happen. We should be free to get in there and talk to our clients.' Underpinning that approach is that they think they should be free to continue the rip-offs that have taken place in this area.

The analysis that we saw in the inquiry is that this dilutes the best-interest obligation. It removes the opt-in requirement where financial planners have to renew every couple of years the contract that they sign. It limits the consolidated annual statement of fees to new clients. Also, it waters down the ban on commissions. I, like Senator Williams, have sat in hearings listening to people saying that their lives have been devastated by a financial planner from the Commonwealth Bank or another institution that you would normally think you could trust. But you could not trust them because the legislation was weak and ineffective and the loophole in it was used by the financial planners in the Commonwealth Bank.

I do not think we can have a position either where we have Senator Williams on the one hand arguing that the coalition are protecting the consumer at the same time as they have ripped $120 million out of ASIC's budget. ASIC themselves, the group that is supposed to be looking after consumers, said clearly, 'We cannot do our job the way we used to do it and the people who will suffer are consumers.' We are talking about $6 billion worth of rip-offs that have been identified over the last few years—ABC Learning, $2.5 billion; Kleenmaid, $82 million; Opes Prime, $630 million; and Storm Financial, $830 million. If that is not an issue that we should take seriously then I do not know what is.

We have seen the coalition establish a number of royal commissions based on attacking their political opponents and payback. If there is one royal commission that should be established, it is a royal commission into the finance sector. We should look at the protections and safeguards for consumers, the role of remuneration including bonuses and executive salaries, the role and resourcing of ASIC, the role of election donations and legislation, the impact on consumers, the impact on the economy, the issues for business regulation and the licensing and qualifications of financial planners, just to mention a few issues. If you ever needed a royal commission, it is a royal commission into the finance sector to protect the Australian public.