Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to note that this is not my first speech. I rise to speak briefly in support of this motion to disallow the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining Future of Financial Advice) Regulation 2014. This motion is about ensuring that significant legislative change is made in a way that is consistent with proper parliamentary and democratic process.

Since announcing my decision this morning to support the disallowance of the corporations amendment regulation I have been repeatedly accused of backflipping on my previous decision to support the regulation. I can accept the pretences that this is based on. However, I would like to make it clear that in the first sitting period after 1 July all the new senators were bombarded with a very large amount of legislation to negotiate, without the ability to speak with constituents and stakeholders in a timely manner. Decisions made in this time were made with the best available information. However, I find it an important part of my job, especially as an independent senator, to listen to all information, including information I may learn as time goes on. If this information leads to me changing my mind, it is not an attack on anybody; it is about keeping to my Senate commitment to make informed decisions.

The regulations make significant changes to the operation of the Corporations Act and by doing so prevent parliamentary scrutiny, which would normally occur. Consumer groups such as Choice, National Seniors and the Council on the Ageing have all voiced significant concerns about the changes. I have heard the concerns of many consumers and investors who have lost everything. We have an opportunity to re-address the bill and to debate the legislation further, hopefully with an outcome that will suit investors and financial planners, especially the small businesses.

The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances scrutinised the regulations and at page 10 of its report stated:

The appropriateness, desirability and cost-benefit implications of particular measures for regulating a specific industry are not matters which go to the substance of the key concern raised by this (and the Scrutiny of Bills) committee, which is that the regulation makes fundamental legislative change that may be more appropriate for parliamentary enactment (that is, via primary rather than delegated legislation).

I am also of the understanding that the government can work with ASIC to create a transitional period for financial planners and suggest they consider it.

I have heard both sides of the story about the changes to FoFA, but I would like to be clear about one thing. I am not interested in hearing about whether the government thinks this is all about the industry super funds and the union movement, nor am I interested in hearing about whether the opposition think this all about keeping the big banks happy. What I am interested in is protecting consumers and protecting my constituents. This disallowance motion ensures that any proposed changes to financial advice laws that impact on consumers are properly scrutinised by the parliament.