Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take further note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked today.

I will start with Senator Cormann's answers and respond to some of the assertions made, particularly by Senator Sterle and others. Senator Sterle was trying to claim a conflict of interest by the Liberal Party because of some donations. This is coming from the Labor Party, where, if you are a union, you buy a seat at the table and you buy influence through the amount that you contribute to the Labor Party! When the Labor Party have the buying of influence entrenched within their system it is absolutely ridiculous for Senator Sterle to lecture the Liberal Party. I do not think Senator Tillem, Senator Dastyari or Senator Sterle have read the changes or are aware of what they are, because the ignorance was evident in all of their presentations. I might very briefly go through what—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: the senator should withdraw. That is incorrect.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point. There is no point of order.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, it is not incorrect. It is ignorant. I will go through why it is ignorant. The Labor Party is trying to make out that all of the protections in FoFA are being abolished. That is simply not true. We are seeing amendments to FoFA which would improve the situation and which would maintain consumer protections, whilst ensuring that we do not have the kinds of costs—the $200 million of additional costs—that we believe are not needed.

So let us go through what the legislation actually does rather than what the Labor Party is pretending it actually does. It reduces compliance costs for small businesses to the tune of about $198.4 million, while maintaining the quality of advice for consumers who access it. It removes requirements to obtain the client's approval every two years for ongoing fee arrangements, the opt-in requirement. That is reasonable. People can opt out at any time, but they should not be forced to continually opt in. That comes with costs.

Unlike the Labor Party, we do not believe consumers are stupid. We believe they take an interest in their financial affairs. They can opt out at any time, they should get disclosure and there should be a requirement to act in their best interests. And do you know what? There will still be a requirement to act in their best interests, contrary to what the Labor Party are saying.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Again, Senator O'Neill is shaking her head and saying that it is not true. If you are going to come into this place and say that, you will have to withdraw for misleading, because it does not get rid of that requirement. All it does is remove some of the uncertainty contained in the very poor and open-ended drafting that is there at the moment. Those are the simple changes.

Another change that the Labor Party complain about is in relation to the limited exemption from the ban on conflicted remuneration. Why do they object to this? Perhaps it is because it would provide some sort of a level playing field with the industry super funds where intra-industry advice is allowed. They are happy for their mates in the industry super funds to be able to do it but not in other areas. That is at the heart of the Labor Party's criticisms and, contrary to what Senator O'Neill and Senator Dastyari are saying, it is simply not true. Those protections are not being taken away. That is why it is important that we see this kind of reform.

In the brief time I have left, I want to touch on Senator Brandis's answers. I commend Senator Brandis for the process of consultation he is going through on the repeal of section 18C and its replacement with improvements. I do not have time to go into detail in the minute I have left. But let us not pretend that we can have legislation that bans everything that is offensive to us. I do not believe that that works. I have had my share over the years of disgraceful commentary about the cultural background of my parents in particular. That kind of stuff hurts. No-one would argue that it does not hurt. But what we are arguing about today is whether we can ban everything that hurts—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we're not. It is just misleading; it is on the basis of race.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

no—and everything that is offensive. For the first time today, we do have vilification actually being banned. That is a good thing and that has never occurred. But we should not have the kind of discussion that has been stifled in the Bolt case being banned. It should not be. Yes, our feelings get hurt from time to time. We do not like it when it happens; I do not like it when it happens. But we cannot have a law to protect against every piece of offensive behaviour in our community. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.