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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator O’Neill today relating to the regulation of financial advice services.

Why this is so important to Australians right now is that—and this is indirectly related to the question that was just asked of Senator Cash—we have a superannuation fund allocation. Australians have that now because Labor established superannuation for all Australians. And it is because of that growing amount of funds that there is an industry that has grown up on the back of it. There are about 11 million workers in Australia and about four million pensioners. That is 15 million people with funds now, because of the vision of Labor; people with funds in their superannuation—funds that they want to make good decisions about, and so go and seek financial advice on.

It is on the back of the growth of that industry that we have seen those opposite play to their bedfellows at the top end of town and take away the rights of ordinary Australians to have access to quality and professional advice. We have seen this government doing deals to get its Future of Financial Advice reform through this place—trying to do it as quietly as possible. But we have news for them. There are 15 million Australians who are interested in this. They are watching. They are listening. And they are disgusted. They are absolutely disgusted, and none more than the seniors, who will not be ignored.

You can try to avoid the scrutiny of the parliament by coming in here and giving the most lacking answers, as we have seen here today, and you can try to avoid the scrutiny of this opposition, but we will fight for ordinary Australians. We will make sure that the concerns that have been raised right across this country this week, about the shameful deal that has been done in limiting the scope of openness and transparency with regard to Future of Financial Advice, are heard. We will continue to fight to make sure that that transparency becomes a reality for Australians, because whatever was achieved here yesterday with that dirty deal is not good enough for Australians, and we will not let it rest.

Question time is when the government and ministers should be accountable to the people of Australia, but we see, day after day, with the answers from Minister Cormann, a mockery of this parliamentary process. What we see I think is very well articulated in The Australian Financial Review of 15 July with this comment from Phil Coorey, who started his article on the FoFA backflip by saying:

Clive Palmer has attracted an avalanche of criticism from seniors groups after he cut a deal with the federal government to save its changes to water down Labor’s Future of Financial Advice laws.

…   …   …

Seniors groups, which were not consulted about the last-minute deal, said the conditions were a nonsense and would do nothing to replace the safeguards removed by the Abbott government.

Seniors Australia is not the most out-there, radical organisation that I have ever come across, and I was pleased to meet with Michael O'Neill recently in one of his visits to this place. He has made himself available to both those in the government and those in the opposition—and, no doubt, to those on the crossbenches—to put articulately the case for why we need proper FoFA legislation and proper support for older Australians and those who are seeking financial advice. In the article, Michael O'Neill, the Seniors Australia chief executive, is quoted as calling the extra conditions a nonsense, and as saying:

All they are is part of a grubby deal … They have treated older Australians with contempt.

And he is right. The minister would not admit that today, but Michael O'Neill is absolutely right. And he is supported in this by Ian Yates, the chief executive of the Council of the Ageing Australia, who, we read in the article:

… said the conditions did nothing to replace the protections removed by the government, “in particular the catch-all best interest protections and the banning of conflicted remunerations”.

Let us be clear about what we are talking about, with the best interest test. Australians have this money, these nest eggs that they have acquired, through Labor's legislation and push for superannuation. It is money that they take off to talk to a financial adviser about. Most Australians would go to a financial adviser and expose their entire financial situation, in a relationship that they would expect would be trusting. Just as you would if you were to go to a doctor or a lawyer, you would expect them to act in your best interests. That is not the case. And what we have seen is commissions paid to financial advisers—trailing commissions going on and on, ad infinitum—where Australians have not been given advice that is in their interests but rather have been given advice that is in the interests of the financial adviser. And, after what happened here yesterday, they are no safer. This is explained quite articulately by Peter Martin— (Time expired)