Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "7.20 pm" in paragraph (4) of the motion moved by Senator Moore be deleted.

The reason that I am moving this amendment on behalf of the coalition is to ensure that this matter is properly considered by the Senate. Let us make no mistake: this has been an issue of some controversy within the community and within this place. On two separate occasions the Senate has voted to keep these regulations in place. Now, as a result of some realignments occurring up the other end of the chamber, there seems to be a stomach to change these regulations.

We as a government accept that that might be the view of the chamber, but surely decent process demands and requires of legislators that there be some consideration given to the impact of those changes. I would recommend to the Senate, and in particular the crossbenchers, the excellent speech given by my colleague Senator Cormann earlier today, in which he set out that there were things in the regulations certain people are seeking to disallow that the Labor Party actually agrees with. This is a classic case of a rush of blood to the head by some legislators willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to hell with the consequences. That is the irresponsible attitude that certain people are taking.

The question is: does this disallowance have to be moved and dealt with today? The answer is an unequivocal no. There is no imperative, there is no reason, there is no requirement as to why this regulation needs to be disallowed today. The 15 days will continue to run. If certain senators were willing to take a breath of air and stop the rush of blood to the head and say, 'Can we actually discuss these matters and come to a more sensible landing?', surely that would be within the best interests of all Australians. There are so many Australians who will be impacted by this attempt to get rid of this regulation. Let us be under no misapprehension, the Financial Planning Association of Australia has said today in a press release that the move that is being sought to be undertaken in the Senate today will:

… have a catastrophic effect across the entirety of the financial services industry, one of the largest employers of people in Australia.

It is 'one of the largest employers of people in Australia', which is indicative of the fact that the services sector is a growing sector and a vitally important sector employing a lot of people. Not only does it employ a lot of people it ensures the good conduct of the administration of people's investments. So we are talking about not only the people who are employed but all the people who have invested money with those people that are employed. You would think common decency and common sense would require that this industry, this sector, would be given more than 24 hours notice of a disallowance of this regulation in this place.

We are still to hear why certain senators who have so vehemently supported this regulation on two separate occasions have now decided, apparently overnight, to seek to change their vote and vote down this regulation. This course of action goes against every single tradition of this Senate. I thought this Senate always prided itself on not being reckless in relation to legislation and regulations. This is the place where these matters are duly considered, and not stunts pulled first thing of a morning by the Manager of Opposition Business abusing the numbers in this place to try to ensure that the government's program is derailed. On a day that is devoted to government business, where tradition has it that government does determine the order of business, the Labor Party and certain crossbenchers have abused their numbers simply to change that. Why? Why could this not have been done next week when we meet again within the time limit for the disallowance of regulations? Nobody in this debate has given that explanation to the Senate, to the financial planners, or to all of those hundreds of thousands of Australians who have money invested with the financial planners.

So, why the hurry? Why the urgency? Why the need for this? I think we know why. Certain crossbenchers have been seduced to change their vote, and those who have been able to get that change of mind are absolutely scared that if these people were allowed for 24 or 48 hours to reconsider their view they may well come to the same landing as they did before when they actually supported these regulations, on two separate occasions.

This matter has been debated twice in four months in this place, and on each occasion these regulations have been upheld. Now what Senator Whish-Wilson and others in this place want to do is turn that around without any notice in circumstances where the industry and the investors have relied on these regulations for, I understand, the past five months, as my colleague Senator Cormann has just confirmed to me.

Any industry needs certainty. I am glad the Senate agrees with that. The financial services sector, the financial planning sector, the biggest employer in Australia, also requires certainty. There was debate and there was uncertainty for many years under the previous Labor government. The Senate finally, in a very mature and considered manner, decided to come to a landing on regulations very ably crafted by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. The Senate voted for them not once but twice in the last four months. As a result, people in the industry and investors had every right to rely on a certainty that the uncertainty of the previous five years had been washed away—a new government, a new landing and a new certainty that would be of benefit to everybody.

Now we have this unseemly haste to try to disallow this regulation, with no reason given and no rationale given as to the urgency. Why can't it wait until next week? Whilst I would normally not entertain interjections, the lack of interjections shows very clearly that nobody in this place can put forward an argument as to why there is an urgency. It has not been ventilated, as one would have hoped, during the previous debate.

The amendment I seek to move is to delete the words: 'unless consideration of the item listed in paragraph (2) has not concluded, in which case the adjournment shall be proposed following the determination of that item.' By deleting those words, paragraph (4) of the motion would read:

The adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7.20 pm.

That would allow for the orderly conduct of the Senate to continue for due consideration to be given to this matter.

Why is it that any legislator would not want due consideration to be given? Why is it that any legislator would be saying to their constituency, 'Look, there is no rush with this. There is time next week to consider this. Why the rush?' I think we know why the rush is on. It is because certain people are scared they will not be able to hold senators who had previously quite rationally, coolly and calmly voted for these regulation—not once but twice—from coming to a similar landing again once confronted with the consequences of their proposed action.

Make no mistake; these regulations have within them many matters on which I think there is unanimity around the chamber that these things should be changed as they are in this particular regulation. If you throw out the regulation you go back to the five years of uncertainty that this country suffered courtesy of the previous Labor government's regulations.

I can understand that the Labor Party and the Greens have learnt nothing from the election defeat. They still want a carbon tax. They still want a mining tax. They still would not turn back the boats. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the last election. Another lesson they clearly have not learnt from the last election is that people want certainty in this space. For five years the people of Australia had to put up with uncertainty—an unseemly uncertainty, an inappropriate uncertainty—that damaged their industry, their employment prospects and their investments.

What we are saying is: let's have a discussion. If there is a mindedness to change the regulation, that might be able to be done, rather than ambushing the government by just disallowing the regulation on such short notice. Say to the government: 'These are the aspects that concern us. Is there an ability to have a mature discussion about this?' Instead, we have this ludicrous proposition that we will now pursue this matter to a conclusion in this place today, where a lot of the good things in the regulatory framework—and there is no dispute about the good things in the regulatory framework—will be thrown out as well. It is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the sort of thing I might say you might expect in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate, which has prided itself ever since its inception as being the place where legislation and regulations are duly considered.

Debate interrupted.