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

I move:

That items 1 to 27 inclusive and item 30 of the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining Future of Financial Advice) Regulation 2014, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2014 No. 102 and made under the Corporations Act 2001, be disallowed.

Here we go again, back in this place, the two sides face to face once again arguing for their cause. On one side we have a government minister who has a coalition on his side that is increasingly dwindling, a coalition of groups outside this place from whom he no longer has the support he once had, a group of people who not through want have been trying to squeeze more money out of Australians' bank accounts, sometimes in the name of affordable advice, but more recently we have heard a rhetoric shift, an attempt to tarnish the name of all super funds. On this side of the chamber we have a coalition that involves the Australian Labor Party, a coalition that involves the Greens and includes people like Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan. We have a broad, eclectic and perhaps unexpected group, a broad coalition of groups who want Australians to have more money in their bank accounts.

I say to the government and the minister, through you, that our broad coalition is growing. Those opposing this government's changes to part 7.7 of the Corporations Act include people like the consumer advocates group Choice, and include representatives of pensioners and retired Australians such as the Council on the Ageing and National Seniors. It includes superannuation funds and super advocacy groups, including Industry Super Australia, the Superannuated Commonwealth Officers' Association and financial counsellors such as Care Financial Counselling Services.

We in the Labor Party are very grateful for the incredible community support we received in this fight from working Australians. We are also grateful for the incredible support we are getting from professional financial planners who are worried that the changes this government is trying to ram through will continue to erode public confidence in their industry and will reduce the professionalism of the industry, seeing the country return to the bad old days of financial advice before the GFC, before the Ripoll report and before FoFA was introduced to improve the disclosure requirements of the Corporations Act, a return to an era where reckless, callous crooks prayed on the savings of unsuspecting Australians, when a handful of individuals besmirched the name and reputation of many good financial counsellors across the country. But over the last week, our broad coalition of those opposing the government's changes has grown even larger. Last week the Financial Services Council conceded that the financial advice industry needs to take a long, hard look at itself. It finally admitted that greater regulation is needed to give consumers confidence in their profession.

What would we all have given to be on the phone call between Mr John Brogden and the minister? If the media reports are true—they are only reports in the media and they may not be true—the minister became aware that their greatest ally in their fight so far, the Financial Services Council's new reform correct position which they have adopted came to the minister's attention two hours before an embargoed media release was being sent out. What we would have given to have known exactly what was said. The minister has said in this place that it is akin to raising the white flag, that he is disappointed and he thinks the industry should do better. I am sure they are not the words he used in that telephone conversation.

The government has been left to explain why they are on their own. I know that the minister, who has fought for this issue tooth and nail, on behalf of or in support of many of the groups on his side of the debate, is well aware that the support, that the community groups, that the financial services groups and now even the banks are raising major concerns about the direction in which this country is taking us on this issue. The irony is that Senator Williams, who has spoken out about these things in the past when he was permitted to speak out, the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, has put his own name to a disallowance motion to oppose the government's new FoFA amendments. There is a very simple explanation for why this is happening. The minister has exceeded his powers under the Corporations Act. He has pushed too far. The legal eagles on the committee made this very clear. The minister's legislation is flawed. It has been rushed into this place to satisfy a handful of big banks and financial planners who still want to offer their sales staff bonuses, who still want to steer unsuspecting customers to their latest product under the guise of financial advice. I say to the minister that, when he gets up here today and when he speaks in this chamber, he does not need to seek leave. He can table the legal advice that he is relying on and that he has been reluctant to hand over to the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Dare I say it: there is another great Sydney warrior who has joined our fight in recent weeks and who has his finger on the pulse of retired Australians, especially those in Sydney, who appears to be someone who has recently come on board with this fight, even though he has made comments in the past, opposing this government's callous attempts to take money from the pockets of ordinary Australians. Of course, I am talking about Sydney radio host Alan Jones. This week, he reminded the minister:

You've been heavied … by the banks …

And later:

… you're letting these people loose on poor, unsuspecting old, vulnerable people who've got money.

I say to Mr Jones that, frankly, I could not have put it better myself. I encourage everyone in this chamber to take the opportunity to read the transcript of what was a spectacular interview between Alan Jones and the minister. In fact, I will go on further, because I know how busy everyone is. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to table a transcript of the interview between Senator Cormann and Alan Jones?