Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion and at the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to alter the hours of meeting and routine of business today and to provide for the consideration of a disallowance motion.

We do not come easily to this place asking for rearrangement of business. We do it when it is important and we believe it is urgent. We believe that it is the will of the Senate to have this discussion today about the incredibly—and I use that word absolutely—important issues around the FOFA regulations. We know these regulations and this issue have been before the Senate on—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe a copy of the motion that Senator Moore will seek to move if suspension of standing orders is granted has been circulated.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not required at this point in time, simply—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought it might be good practice and it might be of assistance to the chamber.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator. Strictly, though, it is not a point of order. It is more a point of clarification. Senator Moore is entitled to introduce this without having that circulated. I understand from the opposition that it now will be circulated.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are always seeking to have good practice and that motion will be circulated as we speak in the chamber, though it is not required. We would have it circulated when the particular motion is before the chamber. That is being done and I am assured it is going around now for clarification. In terms of the reason for the urgency of the suspension, as I said, we know that these regulations and, more importantly, this issue has been before this chamber on a number of occasions. Many senators have had visitations and representations from people who care very deeply about this situation. We know the background and we know the irregularities of the process have led to ordinary people in our community being damaged seriously by issues around financial management.

There was a possibility that legislation could have come before the Senate for consideration. It has not been brought forward by the government. The regulations have been here. This is another ongoing issue about the relationship between primary legislation and regulation—the importance of having those working together in front of the community and in front of this place. However, we believe that we have genuine concern in this chamber. We believe members of the Senate wish to have the debate around these regulations today. We have information that is very important to be discussed around the regulations. It is important that we have this opportunity. Many senators will want to be engaged in the process.

I will not be taking up important time which I believe should be focused on the core issue—the regulations themselves—in extended procedural debate. The chamber knows our position and the government knows our position. We believe it is important that these regulations are clearly and transparently debated in the Senate today. We have the information to do that. We desperately have the need. It is our proposition that the motion to suspend standing orders continues and then, should that be successful, we move effectively into the substantive debate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an incredibly reckless and irresponsible move by the Labor Party today. Do not let anybody think that this has anything to do with the best interests of consumers. This is all about the commercial interests of the Labor Party's main shareholder, the union movement. That is what this is about. We have the union movement with a clear commercial interest in large industry super funds that are fighting very hard for market share in the financial services market across Australia. They have never liked small business financial advisers and they have used their preferential and privileged access to the previous government to make life for small business financial advisers and their clients as hard as possible. Ever since Labor lost the last election, they have been desperate to protect the commercial advantages that Labor delivered to the union dominated industry funds in the financial services market.

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

What are you delivering to the banks?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong is interjecting that we are delivering for the banks. Guess what—this is not about the banks at all. I know that is what the Labor Party is trying to suggest. This is about mums and dads across Australia saving for their retirement and wanting to ensure that the fees they pay out of their retirement savings are as low as possible. This is about making sure that we have the proper balance between consumer protections while making sure that access to high-quality advice remains affordable.

What we did in the wake of the Storm Financial collapse a few years ago was to have a bipartisan inquiry. That bipartisan inquiry came up with bipartisan recommendations for change, which the coalition supported then and still supports now. But of course the previous Labor government, with Mr Shorten as the then Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, decided to go further. It decided to provide clear advantages to industry super funds across Australia at the expense of mums and dads saving for their retirement.

This regulation, of course, which came into effect on 1 July 2014, has been before the Senate twice before. The Senate has voted in support of these regulations twice. Here today is the third time in four months that the Senate has been asked to vote on this. Of course that is because over the last four months David Whiteley, from Industry Super Australia, has been out there coordinating a campaign, making it look as if there is a level of consumer concern. He has been coordinating a campaign as the union leader for union funds. He has been running a dishonest campaign as the union leader for union funds, and the Labor Party is the political arm of the commercial interests of the union movement in here, in this chamber.

What is happening here today is quite reckless. It is quite irresponsible. Whatever you think about it, this is not the way to deal with this. Whatever you think about the legislation in substance, the regulation has been the law of the land for four months. You gave notice at seven o'clock last night that you wanted to get rid of those regulations today. There is actually no need to deal with this today. You know. Senator Moore talked about a transparent process to deal with these issues. Well, guess what? If you were genuine in that, if you were honest about that, you would know that this can be dealt with by 27 November, next week, so we actually could let this lie on the table and continue the conversation. Instead, what you are doing is that you are putting a gun to the government's head and you are putting a gun to the head of the financial services industry, quite recklessly and quite irresponsibly. If this regulation is disallowed today, it will be gone. That will have massive ramifications.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, you might cheer about this, but once you realise what the implications are in the marketplace you will have another thought about it, because there are a whole range of technical problems with your FoFA changes. There are problems that even Mr Bowen previously acknowledged—problems, for example, in the way grandfathering arrangements operated, which destroyed competition. If this goes up today, the cost of advice for consumers will go up. People across Australia saving for their retirement will have to spend more of their retirement savings on financial advice. Competition will go down. The Labor commercial interests in union funds will of course be improved. If this were fair dinkum, you would let this debate play out until 27 November, next week, which is when you know is the deadline— (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talking about delivering for special interests, the Greens do not have any connection to your alleged Labor-union-driven industry super fund. I come at this from a totally different perspective. During the FoFA inquiry, the Australian Bankers' Association made it clear in black and white—and it is a shame Senator Sinodinos has left the chamber—that they had a deal with you, Senator Cormann, and your government to deliver changes to regulations before 30 June. They had not even changed their back-office compliance systems, worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. They were that confident that you were going to deliver for them. They were big donors to your political party.

This is about delivering for consumers, about delivering for seniors. A bank employee came to me only last week, saying off the record that he was at risk of losing his job—he works for one of the big four—because he had not met his monthly sales targets. When he told his boss he did not think it was appropriate—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order on the conduct of senators. Here is a senator who said that he was given some information off the record. He is now breaching that trust—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by disclosing what was said off the record.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is actually a very good point you make, Senator. He has confidentially given me some information—and I certainly will not be disclosing his name; I will make that very clear—that he was at risk of losing his job because he did not meet sales targets, and, when he explained to his boss that he did not necessarily believe that some of the products were in the best interests of the clients, he was told that that was not what mattered; what mattered was meeting his sales targets and making money for the bank. That was only a week ago. He was also told that ASIC was seen within his organisation as being a toothless tiger.

In a few months time, your own government driven Financial System Inquiry will be making recommendations about critical aspects of the FoFA changes to regulations. Why are we rushing this through? Why did you rush these through? Why did you do this on the afternoon before 30 June, on Sunday, when none of us were in the Senate? That is exactly what we expected because the Australian Bankers Association had said that you would deliver for them. You have delivered for special interests here. You have shown who runs this country, who dictates legislation in this place.

Well, we are taking the power back. The Australian consumer, the Australian senior, is taking the power back. This is about us holding you to account, bringing the legislation back into this place and getting it right. It has been a long process, and you should have understood that what the industry needs is certainty. It was very clear—not the Greens, not Labor and not the crossbenchers but the key seniors groups in this country and the key consumer groups in this country were saying, 'It's not good enough.' You have altered something that was put in place to bring back trust in the financial services industry in this country.

I have met with a lot of good financial planners and a lot of people working in the financial services industry. A lot are in my home town. They want trust back in their industry. We need to give this a go. The FoFA regulations had barely even come into force before you changed them to suit the big end of town. The Greens made a very sensible recommendation in the Senate inquiry in our dissenting report that we give these FoFA regulations five years and then we take an evidence based approach as to whether they have increased red tape and put extra costs onto the business models of the big financial services companies. But you did not want to listen to that sensible recommendation.

I have met with the banks, with large financial services companies and with financial planners in the past two months and I have discovered that the big banks have actually gone overboard on the original FoFA recommendations. Take opt-in, for example—something you insist they need to see gone because of red tape problems. Westpac have two opt-ins a year now amongst their clients because they can see the benefit of contacting their clients and saying: 'How's it going? Are you happy with the performance?' This is exactly what FoFA was designed to deliver. So much for this being a piece of legislation that is going to bankrupt them and lead to unnecessary cost. They see the benefit of this.

We need to bring this back to this place and have a real debate, and have sensible legislation put in place that satisfies all key stakeholders and not just the big end of town. I know your party, the Liberal-National Party, are very good at delivering for your donors, but this is for all stakeholders.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Before I call Senator Fifield, I remind senators to direct their remarks to the chair and not across the chamber directly to senators or parties.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is important to come back to the point that this is actually a procedural motion and that what the opposition is seeking to do, through this motion and through this debate, is to justify the rationale for a suspension of standing orders. To seek to suspend standing orders during government business time is a significant thing to attempt to do, because it is the widely accepted view, I thought, that government business time was for the government of the day to determine the business that is transacted. That has certainly previously been the understanding of Senator Xenophon, I know. It has certainly been the understanding of Senator Xenophon, so I am a little surprised that he is supporting this particular motion.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Keep a straight face!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As sure as night follows day, we will hear from the opposition in about 2½ weeks' time, as we get towards the end of the final sitting week of the year, and we will hear the opposition saying the government should have managed their time better. But we know, and we see time and again—and this is yet another exhibit of the fact that the opposition continually thwarts every opportunity the government has to transact business in government business time in an orderly fashion, which is what we seek to do. We have seen filibuster after filibuster on bill after bill, including on legislation that those opposite support. I think it is important that the chamber record and recognise at this point in time that this is yet another example of those opposite seeking to deny the government the right to transact government business in an orderly way in government business time.

I think it has also become clear over recent weeks and months that this particular disallowance motion has become something of a vanity project for Senator Dastyari. It is something that he is really seeking to make his mark with, to make his name with, to demonstrate to his colleagues, 'I'm not just a backroom boy from New South Wales.' It has become something of a vanity project and an obsession of Senator Dastyari's, and it is actually an obsession to seek to deny this government the opportunity to implement one of its election commitments. As Senator Cormann has said repeatedly in relation to FoFA, this is a policy that was announced by the coalition more than two years ago and that it took to the election. What it is seeking to do is to give effect to an election commitment, and yet again those opposite pick and choose those sorts of election commitments that they think we should support. What we are simply seeking to do is give effect to that which we said we would do. This motion to suspend standing orders is also based on a false premise. And the false premise is that the government is in some way, shape or form seeking to reduce consumer protections in relation to financial advice. We are not. That is why there is no need for Senator Dastyari's disallowance motion, and if there is no need for Senator Dastyari's disallowance motion then there is no need to suspend standing orders.

The case has not been made for the suspension of standing orders in this place. To suspend standing orders would seek to delay, and have the effect of delaying, further consideration of government business. I will be interested to hear if those opposite can mount a better argument for the suspension of standing orders, as so far they have not done so. This suspension of standing orders should not be granted, and I would urge crossbench senators not to support a suspension of standing orders, because this place cannot work, this place cannot function properly, unless the government of the day has the opportunity to transact government business in government business time and unless the government of the day has the opportunity to see legislation debated and put to a vote.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop wasting time and sit down!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would urge crossbench senators not to support the suspension of standing orders.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Senator Fifield, you have the call.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down and stop wasting time!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I think I have made my point. Thank you.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Fifield.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Order, Senator Conroy!

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

Mr President—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order: Senator Conroy just made a very unparliamentary remark. He accused Senator Fifield of filibustering, and yet his own man is now getting up to filibuster for five minutes.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Order, Senator Conroy! There are standing orders to do with a lot of things, Senator Conroy, and you are sailing very close to the wind. Senator Dastyari.

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

Thank you, Mr President. This is an important, timely and necessary debate for this chamber to be having. It is a necessary and timely debate, and I urge the senators here today, while looking at this matter about whether or not this is urgent, to take a few minutes and read the Hansards of some of the evidence and testimony that has been given in the inquiries we have been holding about these matters in recent months. I note that Senator Heffernan is not in the chamber at the moment, but if you had participated, as Senator Heffernan did, in our forestry managed investment scheme hearing in the Timbercorp collapse last week, you would have been moved, you would have been touched and you would realise how important and necessary this debate is.

We are going to have plenty of opportunity today to talk about the substantive elements of this issue. One thing Senator Fifield said was correct—it is something I am very passionate about. It is something I care deeply about. I urge all senators to take some time today to speak to some of the victims groups that have come up here to speak to them. Speak to the victims of Timbercorp, speak to National Seniors, speak to the Council on the Ageing, speak to Choice—they are all in the building today; they are all around to speak to senators—and hear some of these harrowing, horrible tales. Sometimes in this chamber we get caught up with politics. There is a place for politics and there is a place for doing what is right, and this is about doing what is right. There is a reason why every single consumer and advocacy group in this country that looks after the interests of consumers believes that these are bad laws, that these are bad regulations and that they should not be supported.

I am proud to stand together with a series of crossbench senators, with a group of senators from different political backgrounds, from different political views, and say that these are bad laws, these are bad regulations and they should be disallowed. We are going to get to the substantive part of the debate later, and there will be plenty of opportunity to speak then. I urge the Senate to realise the urgency of this debate, the importance of this debate. For far too long too many victims have been silenced; for far too long too many people's stories have not been told. We are an incredibly privileged, lucky group of people to be able to be here in the Senate and to be able to have the opportunities we have. We also have an incredible responsibility to the many Australians who have been less fortunate—the Australians who have been victims of financial crime, the Australians who have been left behind, who have been given a dodgy information. What we are saying is let us have a debate today and say that protecting consumers and protecting consumer rights, protecting the victims of financial crime, is a priority that we will be dealing with today.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your excessive red tape doesn't do that.

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

The minister makes the argument that he wants to get to the debate about the substantive issues. I am more than happy to get to the substantive debate. I urge the Senate, and I urge Senator Cormann, to stop the filibustering, stop the talking and put the motion—we will happily get to the substantive debate. What these regulations really come down to is a wish list for powerbrokers within the industry and it is a return to the bad old days where a handful of crooks, criminals and conmen gave the entire—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What, New South Wales Labor?

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

I wish Senator Macdonald would stop talking about Senator—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ignore the interjections, Senator Dastyari.

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

I want to get back to what we are talking about today, and that is whether or not this is a matter we should be suspending standing orders for and whether this should be a priority item of business for the Senate. I urge the Senate to realise that this is not about us—this is about the victims. It is about the people who have suffered; it is about the people who have lost. There is a reason why not one advocacy group, not one consumer group, has supported you in this: these are bad laws. I know you have been hearing from the Bankers Association; I have had the same big banks on the phone this morning that I am sure have been calling you as well. It is not about them. This is about the victims, and today the victims' voices deserve to be heard.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will support the suspension of standing orders, for a number of reasons. Last Wednesday in Melbourne the Senate Economics References Committee—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Is it not your normal practice and the practice of the Senate to alternate between both sides of the house? Senator Xenophon is clearly on that side. So far we have had four views supporting the motion and so far only two against. I would have thought the call would have come to me or Senator Bernardi, who both indicated that we want to speak on this motion.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe that there is a point of order but I will consider the matter and take further advice later. It is not for me to anticipate a senator's position on any particular motion. Equally, I do go from side to side in the chamber. Seniority plays a part from time to time, as senators would know.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't get much more senior than me!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is in relation to holders of office within the chamber. Senator Macdonald, you have raised a point that I will reflect upon but at this stage I am comfortable with my decision.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Out of my great respect for Senator Macdonald, I will keep my remarks particularly short. I will support the suspension of standing orders. There is some urgency in respect of this. The evidence heard by the Senate Economics References Committee in Melbourne on Wednesday 12 November, just last week, was particularly harrowing. There has been massive failure, with thousands of Australians facing losing their homes as a result of very bad financial advice. The concern expressed by groups such as Choice, National Seniors Australia and the Council on the Ageing is that the government's regulations weaken consumer protections. I spoke to Michael O'Neill and Ian Yates from National Seniors Australia and the Council on the Ageing respectively just a few moments ago. Their concern is not a political one; it is a concern based on the fact that their constituents, the people that they represent—particularly senior citizens and pensioners—will be in a much weaker position.

I think we ought to have a substantive debate on this. I urge my backbench colleagues from the coalition to take this into account—do you really want to be part of another financial scandal if we do not deal with this in a very comprehensive and common sense way? My fear is that the government has gone too far with these regulations. The balance, the pendulum, has swung too far to industry to the detriment of consumers. There is a real urgency in this and we need to deal with it in a common-sense, practical way. That will give an opportunity for those who support the disallowance of this motion to sit down with the government in good faith and come up with a compromise to deal with the very genuine concerns by Choice, by National Seniors Australia, by the Council on the Ageing and by a whole range of other consumer groups who I do not see as primarily political but have genuine concerns for the people that they represent.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate, for Senator Xenophon's benefit, is about the suspension of standing orders. This is no way to deal with an industry that is the second-largest industry employer in our country. This shotgun approach to dealing with this important matter should not be tolerated by the Senate. I cannot believe that Senator Xenophon, with all his pious words about the sanctity and importance of the Senate, would agree to this approach to deal with this so important matter. It is essential for this to work properly that we have an ordered series of business. The government places the business. These things should be dealt with and have, in fact, as I understand it, been dealt with by the Senate two or three times already.

I have not got much time left, but I am going to move before I conclude that we extend the time for this debate so that Senator Lambie and Senator Muir can indicate their views on this important matter. I have read in the paper that they have had a change of view, and I think it might be important that we hear that. I do not want to discuss the motion that Senator Moore has flagged, but I am intending to move a motion that we delete paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c). If it is so important—and I do not think it is—to the Labor Party, the Greens and some of the crossbenchers then perhaps we should forgo question time and get on and deal with it. I see the motion as it stands means that in effect we might be here until three o'clock in the morning.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then you should sit down.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we go: the Labor Party is bullying, yet again. I can understand Senator Dastyari's concern to get himself a bit of a profile—after all, he was General Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party at the time when all of that corruption by, I regret to say, my namesake and Eddie Obeid, Senator Conroy's mate, was exposed. I can understand why—

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

Who is the precious petal now, Ian?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Ignore interjections, Senator Macdonald, and do not interject, Senator Wong.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate continuously interjects. It is the only time she speaks in this chamber, Mr President.

I want to move an amendment—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot entertain a motion of that nature.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Conroy! I determine these matters, not you, Senator Conroy.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Silence, Senator Conroy! Senator Macdonald, I cannot entertain that as a motion. There is no provision for you to move that. There is a motion before the chair on the procedural matter to suspend standing orders.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I move that standing orders be set aside to allow Senator Lambie and Senator Muir to—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not until I dispose of this matter, Senator Macdonald. The question before the chair now is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Moore be agreed to.