Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I encourage every one of our friends in this chamber and those poor folks on the other side of the chamber, who have to get up in this place and stand up for their constituents, with their fingers crossed and with reality suspended, pretending that the changes that Minister Cormann is trying to ram through this place will be in the best interests of Australians' bank balances, to take the time, read the transcript of the interview with Mr Alan Jones and listen to what Alan Jones had to say.

These changes are not in the interests of Australians. These changes are only going to benefit a handful of special interests within this debate. And the unfortunate reality is that special interests have so dominated this debate and have so taken control of the government's agenda that there are, increasingly, a number of good, hardworking, decent, financial advisers out there who want to do the right thing, who want to have an industry that they can be proud of and who are increasingly realising that the best way to get public confidence is to make sure there are rules and regulations in place that hold them to a high standard. The reality is that the bulk of financial planners out there are doing the right thing and want to do the right thing. Yes, there are a small group of crooks, criminals and con men who have given the industry a bad name. Frankly, what we in this chamber should be doing is taking whatever steps we can to fight them, beat them and defeat them, not running some kind of regulatory protection racket for them, which is what we are attempting to disallow today.

At the end of the day, it comes down to one big issue and that is: what are your priorities and what are your values? It comes down to which side of the debate do you want to be on? We on this side of the chamber believe we need to be on the side of the consumers, the financial planners and the sectors of the industry that are trying to do the right thing. Yes, if you impose stronger rules and stronger protections it will have an impact, certainly in the short term, on the bottom line of the big financial planning houses. It will have an impact on the bottom-line profits of some of these organisations of which we speak, but it will protect consumers and the financial planners who are out there doing the right thing. And that should be our focus in this place.

The broad coalition that we have out there in the community on this issue is growing and continues to grow. The broad coalition that once began as a few outspoken victims grew to consumer groups and then grew to those representing seniors and others. Now it includes people such as the Financial Services Council and, increasingly, some of the big organisations and the big banks have come to the realisation that there needs to be action and activity and that steps need to be taken in this space.

I say to the minister, whom I have a lot of respect for, that simply because you may have the numbers in this place to exercise an outcome a particular way because of deals that may or may not have been done, it does not make it good policy and it does not make it right. I believe the art of understanding these things in this place is knowing when not to exercise power, simply because you have it. I think the mistake being made here is that you have a minister, a position and a government that is in isolation with what is happening in the community. Yes, they believe—and I suspect that they are correct—they can maintain the numbers to get whatever they want through on this whole FoFA issue. As draconian and as hurtful as they want to be, they have stitched up their deal. We all sat in this chamber while we watched the minister stand up and read out a letter that had been written by the member for Fairfax from the other place, while the member for Fairfax sat there and watched him. We all had to sit and watch that humiliating act and, as a result of that, yes, he probably has the support he needs to do what he wants to do. But it does not make it right. It does not make it in the interest of ordinary Australians. It does not make it in the interest even of the financial planning industry, which itself is coming to the realisation that something needs to happen. Like a Japanese warrior well after the war is over, we have the minister there still fighting the fight, still not recognising things have changed. The industry itself is now crying out and saying, 'Please, we want to have the confidence of the Australian public. For us to be able to achieve that, we need to have greater regulation in place.'

Let me be very clear about this. We will not be backing down in this fight. Let me, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, address my friends on the crossbenches directly. To Senator Muir from the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party, to senators Wang, Lazarus and Lambie from the Palmer United Party, you have been drawn deeply and passionately into this debate. But let me make myself be absolutely understood. No matter what the outcome of this vote, no matter whether this regulation or upcoming legislation passes this House, we will not be backing down on this issue. We will continue to fight, we will continue to make the case, we will continue to go out there and battle on behalf of working Australians, for retired Australians, for young Australians and for anyone trying to improve their financial position. We will fight against the Abbott government, we will fight against the interests of a handful of big banks and we will fight against those in the financial planning industry who think it is good enough for us to return to the good old days of financial planning.

Fundamentally, those of us in this place are privileged. We are privileged to have the opportunities that we have. While we exercise that privilege, we should always remember that there are Australians out there that have not had the opportunities that we have had, that have not been as fortunate as those of us in this place have. I am not saying those in this chamber have not worked hard or have not sacrificed to be here, they have. But they have also been incredibly fortunate. We have a responsibility of those who have not been as fortunate as us. These regulations and, more broadly, the whole-of-government approach is not about helping those Australians out, it is not about being on this side, and it is not about helping them; no, it is about making sure the interests of a handful of big corporate banks are being protected.

Frankly, it is clear when you see who is on what side of the debate. It is clear when you have the big financial planning institution houses as the only people there. Even they are walking away as quickly as they can from the government. If there is a debate and you are on the wrong side of every single consumer group, every single advocacy group, every single victims group then, surely, you have to question whether that is the right side of the debate to be on.

I say to the minister through the chair: Minister, you are far better than the proposals you have brought into this chamber. You are far better than the legislation you are proposing. Frankly, with the opportunity, the skill and the ability you have, you should be presenting something much better to the Australian people.

I seek leave to table this document.

Leave granted.