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

I stand to support the disallowance motion by Senator Dastyari, and I do that because this is an issue of some significant national importance. This is an issue that I have been involved in for some time as a senator during my period of serving on the Economics Legislation Committee and the Economics References Committee. What I have seen reported to that committee in its various inquiries and through the estimates process leaves me very concerned that ordinary Australians are not getting a fair go. I am extremely concerned that the coalition is putting the big banks, big money and big donations before the interests of the Australian community. That is the reality of what we are facing here.

We have heard the coalition argue about red tape. I have said it before: one person's red tape is another person's protection. And the protection that we are putting in place—that the Labor Party put in place previously—is protection to ensure that the rip-off merchants do not get into the bank balances of ordinary Australians and do not end up destroying the lives of ordinary Australians who have worked hard their whole lives to put together, in many cases, a very modest bank balance to invest for their future. Yet we have this cavalier approach from the coalition that simply argues that this is about the CFMEU. Give us a break! This is about the people who have lost their homes. This is about the people who have suffered nervous breakdowns. This is about the people who have lost their health. This is about the people whose families have been ripped apart because there were not adequate protections in place prior to the FoFA regulations and legislation.

That is the issue that we should be talking about. I have heard some pretty poor contributions in my time in this place, but Senator Ronaldson's contribution almost takes the cake. Senator Ronaldson was roaring away, bellowing away, but I never heard him mention any of the issues that we are debating here. He mentioned none of the issues about proper regulation, proper legislation and proper controls to protect the Australian public against the rip-off merchants out there in the financial sector making themselves rich, driving around in their Mercs, driving around in their Bentleys, out there on Sydney Harbour in their big boats—those are the protections that are in place here. That is what is going on here. And it is clear that the arguments that are being put up, that this is going to affect all these small businesses, are so much nonsense. The reality is that 80 per cent plus of financial planners are linked to the four big banks and to the AMP. That is the reality. This is not about small business; this is about big business. This is about big banks who have allowed, under their name, some of the most egregious rip-offs of ordinary Australians ever in this country. It is about ensuring that the big banks take some responsibility to bring about a proper course of conduct in the financial planning industry. It is about trying to make sure there are no more Storm Financials. It is about trying to make sure that there are no more Trios, no more Timbercorps, no more Commbank finance problems and no more Macquarie Private Wealth rip-offs. These are the issues, and all the bellowing and all the ideology and all the nonsense you hear from Senator Ronaldson will not make any difference to that.

It is clear that this Senate has considered the issues and that the crossbenchers have considered the pleas from individual Australians to be protected against the rip-off merchants. They have listened to Choice. They have listened to the other pensioners associations, to the Council on the Ageing and to National Seniors. They have listened to their concerns about what is happening to the consumers in this industry. And they are arguing that you cannot let the market rip when it comes to the finance sector—there have to be checks and balances. There have to be controls. There has to be a government that looks after the interests of everyone in this country who is investing through the big banks and their financial advisers.

The problem we have—and we have seen it in New South Wales—is that big business and the big banks have huge influence on the coalition—a massive influence. You have just seen what happened in Newcastle, where the rich businesspeople drive up in their Bentley, the coalition politician jumps into the passenger seat and the rich driver of the Bentley hands over the brown paper bag full of money to get influence with the politician. That is what is happening with this mob now. That is exactly what is happening over here. It is the big banks, it is AMP and it is the big business controlling the coalition, because there is no-one else in this Senate supporting the position that has been adopted by the coalition.

When the crossbenchers have had a chance to go back to Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales and listen to what people are saying about the problems associated with the rip-off merchants in the finance sector, they have come back and changed their view. They are entitled to listen to the community. They are entitled to listen to age pensioners who are being ripped off. They are entitled to take a position that says, 'We must fix this terrible position that the coalition have brought about where the checks and balances and controls that are in place are no longer there.' This goes back some time. This goes back a long way.

I heard, again, Senator Dastyari being attacked. It just seems to me that Senator Dastyari is doing a good job, because every day you get personal attacks on Senator Dastyari—attacks on how he looks, attacks on what he is doing. That is not how we should be dealing with the issues in here. I think the way the Leader of the Government in the Senate engaged in those personal attacks on Senator Dastyari yesterday demonstrated that Senator Dastyari has really exposed the coalition. He has exposed the coalition on the basis of their support for the banks over the community. That is what he has done. That is why you hear the roaring and bellowing of senators like Senator Ronaldson, with absolutely no intellectual underpinning to the argument—just these arguments about the CFMEU, arguments about industry funds and arguments about unions. I have been involved in this debate now for some years and these have never been the issues that have been raised anywhere in any of the inquiries into this problem. The issues that have been raised have been the lack of controls on the big banks, the lack of controls on financial planners and the lack of controls that saw Trio rip off people all over this country.

Labor took that into account and Labor set about trying to deal with it. When Labor put up the Corporations Amendment (Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2012, there were two FoFA measures. One was a requirement for providers of financial advice to obtain client agreement to ongoing advice fees every two years and enhanced annual disclosure fees and services associated with the ongoing fees. We said: 'If you are going to take money off people, you have to disclose what you are doing. You have to advise them every two years why you are being paid.' What is the problem with that? We said that we should enhance the ability of ASIC to supervise the financial services industry through changes to its licensing and banning powers.

One of the most excruciating times I have ever had in this place was watching Senator Williams, a coalition senator, who was a bit of a pit bull—if I can use that word nicely—against the excesses of the financial sector in this country. He took up a position to expose the problems that people were having with these companies and these big banks and these financial advisers. During an estimates where I was a member of the committee with Senator Williams, I thought ASIC treated Senator Williams with contempt, and I did not think that was the right and proper thing for ASIC to do. I went down to the estimates hearing and I went after ASIC and I put 16 questions on notice to ASIC. Then I had a discussion with Senator Williams and I recommended to Senator Williams that he should go and seek the support of the Treasurer at the time to get an inquiry going into these financial planners and into ASIC. Senator Williams did that.

It is unfortunate that Senator Williams has gone from being a pit bull to a bit of a poodle on this issue, because he has been shirt fronted—to use that word—by the Liberal leadership on this issue because it is exposing the banks, it is exposing the financial planners and it is exposing AMP. So Senator Williams will probably come in here, if he is involved in the debate, and tell you it is not really about all the issues he was concerned about in the past; it is now about vertical integration; and if you fix vertical integration everything is going to be okay. That is not the case. Unless you have proper regulation, unless ASIC are out there dealing with these issues and looking after ordinary Australians, unless ASIC have a proper approach and the powers to deal with these people, it will not go away. Senator Williams has been very good on this issue and you could certainly look at—