Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Gallacher sits down with his ringing requirement for good regulation. At the end of the day, Senator Gallacher, older Australians need to actually be able to afford it. They need to be able to access advice that will assist them in to their retirement, advice that is affordable, accurate and based in sound practice. Going to Senator O'Neill's question, she asked the minister how the change that went through the Senate last night is meeting another election commitment from this government and what the cost is going to be for small business. I welcome the Labor Party's newfound concern about additional costs to small business. I urge them to get on board to repeal the carbon tax and the $11 million a day impost to the whole economy that their bit of regulatory burden gave our economy. But I do digress from the question in front of us.

Senator O'Neill is using as the basis for her spurious question a report from Money Management on 14 July, 'Treasury disowns key FoFA research'. She has actually based her questions on rubbery figures. In fact, the ABC Fact Check also saw that these issues continually raised by the opposition on the cost to small business are based on false figures. The article states:

The Federal Treasury has denied it has endorsed the validity of research conducted by Rice Warner on behalf of Industry Super Australia …

I believe that stands at the heart of Senator O'Neill's questions. The measures that we did pass do not go in any way to endangering older Australians being able to make sound financial decisions about their retirement. Indeed, I have been lobbied and contacted by small businesses right throughout my electorate who are running financial advisory services. They have an ongoing relationship with their clients and deliver value over and over again. They do not want to see a reduction in consumer protections for the return of commissions on superannuation investments.

There are three issues I want to raise. Firstly, on the issue of commissions. We hear from the opposition that the amendments do not allow commissions to financial advisers, investment or superannuation products. I do not think that older Australians should actually be paying for a bank teller to open a term deposit and be required to be paying for these things. Financial advisers do not provide general advice. They provide personal archive which requires that they fully understand the client's situation and objective before making any recommendation. In this scenario, commissions are still banned under the amendments.

Best interest duty remains under the amendments. The amendments seek to modify the test and the client knows what to expect of their adviser, that the client actually has increased financial literacy—appropriate checks and measures. Another Storm collapse will be unlikely. There have been claims throughout the media, spurned on by the opposition, that we would be subject to the sorts of issues surrounding the Storm collapse. That is simply not the fact. We have promised to do what we said we would do. We removed the requirement for an investor to keep re-signing contracts with their adviser on a regular basis. We have simplified and streamlined the additional annual fee disclosure requirements. We have improved the operation of the best interest duty and we have provided certainty around the provision and availability of scaled advice. Consistent with our comprehensive statement of 20 June 2014, we are going to provide clarity and certainty for the financial advice industry and investors. The government's changes have been implemented through the regulations that we have been able to get through the Senate.

I point the opposition to ABC Fact Check, which described assertions by Chris Bowen that the government was bringing back commissions or conflicted remuneration for financial advisers as inaccurate and scaremongering. The ABC Fact Check website says that the opposition and the shadow Treasurer are basing their whole arguments on inaccurate information. (Time expired)